This chapter actually concludes the part of Ecclesiastes which is the most
difficult to understand and interpret. Up to this point Solomon has written a
lot of things which, to a Christian, do not make any sense at all. What is the
explanation of this? Scholars vary in their explanations; but the conclusion
must be; (1) that Solomon is rehearsing the allegations of materialistic
unbelievers with a view to refuting them in his conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), (2) that he was
writing of what he saw `under the sun,' and not of what he believed, or (3)
that, "Solomon, for the time being, had abandoned his faith in God,
altogether,"F1 and that his words throughout
Ecclesiastes thus far indicate that, "Man would not know that there was any
fundamental difference between a man and a beast."F2
This writer has been unable to find a convincing answer as to which of these
explanations should be adopted.
Part of the reason for this uncertainty lies in the enigma of Solomon's life.
He was a man greatly loved by the Lord, endowed with great wisdom, who prayed a
magnificent prayer at the dedication of the Temple, and who was the most honored
and glorified person (from the human standpoint) in the whole history of Israel.
In spite of this, however, any careful student of God's Word must conclude that
the magnitude of Solomon's wickedness was immeasurable. It is this fact that
suggests the possibility that Ecclesiastes is generally a statement of Solomon's
unbelief; but if that is true, it would mean that the conclusion in Eccl. 12 was
later added by an inspired writer, as some scholars affirm (although without any
proof whatever). Another explanation of the magnificent "conclusion of the whole
matter" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) is that
Solomon finally came to his senses and returned to the love and service of God.
This is the interpretation that seems most logical to this writer.
"The Jews generally, and also St. Jerome, hold the book to have been written
by Solomon following his repentance and restoration from the idolatry into which
he had fallen through the influence of the heathen women he had married."F3
We find it impossible to believe that "all is vanity," a declaration that
occurs dozens of times in the book. Nor can it be true that men and animals have
the same fate. Who can believe that, "Eat, drink, and be joyful," is, in any
sense whatever, the ultimate meaning and employment of life? It is impossible to
believe that the "dead know nothing," except in a limited sense. Moses and
Elijah stood on the mountain of transfiguration and carried on a conversation
with Jesus Christ. Of course, Solomon lived before the magnificent revelation of
life and immortality that were brought to mankind in the life and teachings of
the Christ; but Solomon's father David certainly would never have said a lot of
things that one finds in Ecclesiastes.
Also, the idea of the hopelessness and futility of life, stressed throughout
Ecclesiastes, was by no means accepted by the patriarchs. They most certainly
believed in the possibility, if not the certainty, of life after death. Abraham
was willing to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, because, "He believed that
God was able to raise Isaac from the dead" (Hebrews 11:19).
From all these considerations, this writer favors the view that Solomon
indeed repented (even as did Manasseh), and that after his return to God, he was
inspired to write this book, and that many of the things written in Ecclesiastes
represent views which Solomon once had erroneously received, and which, when he
wrote Ecclesiastes, he would reject and outlaw altogether in his conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).
We have previously mentioned Paul's description of his life under the Mosaic
Law (Rom. 7), which is analogous to what was probably Solomon's life (and
beliefs) prior to his repentance. In all of Ecclesiastes, we should never forget
that it was written long ages before the glorious revelation of the New
Testament was delivered to mankind, certified and sealed by the death, burial
and resurrection of the Son of God.
ALL IS IN THE HAND OF GOD Verse 1 For all this
I laid to my heart, even to explore all this: that the righteous, and the wise,
and their works, are in the hand of God; whether it be love or hatred, man
knoweth it not; all is before them.
The grand truth stated here is that God is in control. Everything that
occurs, in the final analysis, happens under the permissive will of God.
The meaning of the latter part of this verse is that, "We are unable to
discern from that which we may observe taking place in life, which men are
living under God's displeasure, and which ones are those whom he loves."F4 THE SAME FATE COMES TO ALL Verses 2-6 All things come alike to
all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to
the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth and to him that
sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner; [and] he that sweareth, as he
that feareth an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that
there is one event unto all: yea also, the heart of the sons of men is full of
evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that [they go] to
the dead. For to him that is joined with all the living there is hope; for a
living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die:
but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the
memory of them is forgotten. As well their love, as their hatred and their envy,
is perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything
that is done under the sun.
We should preface this paragraph with imaginary words from Solomon: "This is
the way I viewed things while in rebellion against God." If this should not be
considered a valid understanding of the paragraph, then we should limit what is
said here as a declaration of the way things appear when they are viewed purely
from an earthly and materialistic viewpoint, as characteristic of what is done
"under the sun."
All things come alike to all(Ecclesiastes 9:2). There is no way that this can
be strictly true. True, the event of death comes to all; but this says, all
things come alike to all men!
They go to the dead(Ecclesiastes 9:3). This, as it stands in the
passage, is cited as the end of everything. And, in the earthly sense, of course
it is. This is an obstinate fact; but God has placed in man's heart some equally
obstinate intuitions that contradict it. He has set eternity in their heart (Ecclesiastes 3:11). And this pushes us toward an
answer that lies beyond the pages of Ecclesiastes; and that is, The prospect
(even the certainty) of reward and punishment in the world to come.F5
Loader interpreted what is written here as saying that, "Religious and moral
qualities of man do not have the weight of a feather in affecting his
fate."F6 This might not be the correct understanding
of what is written here; but the passage surely allows that as one understanding
of it. One thing is sure, "If that is what the text says, it is a lie," and must
be understood as the false teaching Ecclesiastes was designed to refute and
deny.
For the living know that they shall
die(Ecclesiastes 9:5). This
knowledge on the part of the living is here cited as the one and only reason
given in the text that living is any better than being dead. This cannot be
true, because the living may still turn to God, obey the holy gospel and attain
unto eternal life, whereas that opportunity does not belong to the dead.
The incredible pessimism of this passage staggers one's imagination. "Such an
alleged `advantage' of living as compared with death only serves to strengthen
the emphatic finality of death."F7 But death is not
final! "It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this cometh judgment"
(Hebrews 9:27). Solomon's conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) refutes what is
written here.
The dead know not anything, neither have they any
more a reward(Ecclesiastes
9:5). The Seventh Day Adventists have taken this verse as the proof of their
false doctrine that, Resurrection is a restoration to life of the non-existent
dead. No soul is conscious after death.F8 But is not
this in the Word of God? Certainly, just like the word of Satan is found in the
Word of God (Genesis 3:4). It is not written
that God said, The dead do not know anything, but that Solomon, one of the
wickedest men who ever lived, said it. Even if Solomon believed it, which is
questionable, because he might have been recounting his religious philosophy
during the times of his apostasy, -- but even if he believed it, it could not
possibly be true. The glorious one who is Greater than Solomon gave us the story
of the rich man and Lazarus; and the rich man is represented as being, not
merely conscious after death, but in terrible pain and anxiety regarding his
brethren who had not yet died, but who were living wickedly as he had lived.
(See Luke 16:19-31). Oh yes, this is a parable, but it is not a fable; and one
of the characteristics of a parable is that it is based upon an event which
either happened or could have happened. Jesus never used parables to teach lies
to his followers.
Also, in Revelation we have this, "I saw underneath the altar the souls of
them that had been slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they
held; and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy
and true, dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the
earth"?F9 In the light of what the Christ has said,
one may safely set aside what the wicked Solomon is here reported in God's Word
to have said.
The Seventh Day Adventist notion that the resurrection is the creation of the
non-existent dead is also an outright contradiction of Christ's declaration that
"God is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, and that he is the God
of the living, not of the dead." (Matthew
22:32). This clearly states that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living (even
in the state of death) and that they are not non-existent.
EAT, DRINK, ETC, FOR TOMORROW YOU DIE Verses 7-10 Go thy way, eat thy bread
with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God hath already accepted
thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let not thy head lack oil. Live
joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of thy life of vanity,
which he hath given thee under the sun, all thy days of vanity: for that is thy
portion in life, and in thy labor wherein thou laborest under the sun.
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for there is no work,
nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou goest.
This, of course, is Epicureanism. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we
die." This philosophy is absolutely worthless, unless death is the end of
everything. As Paul stated it, "If the dead are not raised up, let us eat and
drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Corinthians
15:32). Solomon has repeatedly advocated this doctrine, not only here, but
in Eccl. 1:9; 1:15; 3:1-9; and in Eccl. 3:14-15. This was evidently the position
that he accepted during the days of his apostasy. One question that arises from
this interpretation is that of whether or not Solomon ever repented and turned
to God as the Jews allege that he did. We find no Biblical support of that idea
anywhere. Nevertheless, that is a necessary corollary of our interpretation of
Ecclesiastes.
God hath already accepted thy
works(Ecclesiastes 9:7)
... Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest. which he (God)
hath given thee (Ecclesiastes 9:9).
Here we have a glimpse of the penitent and restored Solomon honoring God for his
marvelous gifts and praising him for the blessings given to the sons of men,
even while he is still relating the stubborn and rebellious things that he had
once believed. Note that he referred twice in these few verses to life as
vanity. There is also here a favorable mention of marriage and the loving of one
wife all the days of thy vanity (Ecclesiastes
9:9), which is surprising enough from an author like Solomon.
The great value of Ecclesiastes is that it elaborates fully the absolute
worthlessness and vanity of life on earth by any man who lives without the fear
of God and submission to the divine authority of our Creator.
THE RACE IS NOT TO THE SWIFT, NOR THE BATTLE TO THE STRONG Verses 11, 12 I returned, and saw under
the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet
favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. For man also
knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the
birds that are caught in the snare, even so are the sons of men snared in an
evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.
This passage, one of the most famous in Ecclesiastes, should be understood as
dealing with unexpected exceptions to what may be generally expected. The swift
usually win the race, and the battle usually goes to the strong, but not always!
It was an untimely rain that defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and a purposeless
bow-shot that slew Ahab. All kinds of happenings may intervene to make:
The best laid schemes of mice and men
Gang aft a-gley!
An'
lea'e us naught but grief and pain
For promised joy.F10
In the recent Olympic races, the swiftest
runner, unanimously favored to win, suffered a fall; and another took the prize.
In his rebellious days, Solomon looked upon all such disappointments as more
proof that, "all is vanity."
Incidentally, we have often cited Eccl. 9:11 here as another reason why the
righteous sometimes suffer, whereas the wicked sometimes prosper and are
honored. This is only one among half a dozen other reasons.
Time and chance happeneth to them
all(Ecclesiastes 9:11). All
kinds of unpredictable and uncontrollable events may, and frequently do, change
good fortune into bad fortune, or vice versa. Kidner thought that there was a
bare possibility that Paul had this verse in mind when he wrote, So it is not of
him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy (Romans 9:16); but he pointed out that, Paul's
concept is far different from that here. Paul noted that God has mercy upon all
mankind, but there is not a trace of any thought of God's compassion
here.F11 THE POOR WISE MAN WHO DELIVERED A CITY Verses 13-15 I have also seen wisdom
under the sun on this wise, and it seemed great unto me: There was a little
city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and
besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a
poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered
that same poor man.
This incident was evidently included in the book here as another example of
the `vanity' which the author found in everything that he saw `under the sun.'
Indeed, there is something distressing in this.
Look at the monuments men have built all over the world. Whom do they honor?
Generally, they honor those who butchered their thousands and tens of thousands
on bloody battlefields, but not the wise statesmen who negotiated peace. "How
warped are our human value systems! Jesus said, `Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called the sons of God'" (Matthew 5:9)."F12
The sad fact of this little city's true benefactor having been forgotten is
only one of a million other similar situations in which there have been gross
miscarriages of human justice and even intelligence. Why? The status of our
human race is the only explanation that is needed. Our race, which is in
rebellion against God, is divinely condemned to death. "Thou shalt surely die"
(Genesis 2:17). If one leaves God and his
merciful provision for man's redemption out of consideration, our wretched race,
wallowing in the miseries, disease and violence which are the fruit of its own
wickedness, is indeed `vanity of vanities.' Solomon's analysis of what he saw
`under the sun' was profoundly correct, if the observer leaves God out of his
analysis, as Solomon was obviously doing in this part of Ecclesiastes.
Many remember David as the fair-haired shepherd boy who defeated a giant named Goliath. Others recall David as the wise Jewish ruler who brought the tribes of Israel together as a united nation. The ancient texts also present David as a powerful warrior, cunning diplomat, and talented musician. However, with all these tremendous accolades, the foundation of David’s fame and faith can be traced to a period of severe trial and doubting in his life. Indeed, David was a true philosopher.
Early in his journey, David was chosen to succeed Saul as the king of Judah. Although Saul was initially impressed by David’s skills as a soldier, politician, and musician, Saul became wary of his successor, so he put out a contract on David’s life. David was forced to live on the run, often spending weeks hiding in the network of caves surrounding the Dead Sea.
It is here that David really began asking the tough questions of life. Alone in the dark or on the run through enemy territory, David opened-up and honestly shared his thoughts, struggles, and fears. David was frustrated with God’s plan for his life, and he wrote about it in his prayer journals. Although Saul stopped at nothing to kill David, David never followed through on his opportunities to kill Saul. David’s years alone with God forged his exemplary character and unflinching faith.
Through loneliness and struggle, David learned to be fully dependant on God.
When Saul finally died in an unrelated battle, David returned to Judah and claimed his position as king over Judah in 1009 BC. Seven years later, the northern tribes of Israel accepted him as king and he became ruler of a united Jewish nation until his death in 969 BC. David wasn’t a perfect leader or a perfect man, but his years alone with God, humbled and crumbled in the dark, developed the soul of a legendary philosopher-king, and forged a legacy that endures to this day.
Life of King David – His Theme
“When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer. “Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD’ -- and you forgave the guilt of my sin. “Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you while you may be found; surely when the mighty waters rise, they will not reach him. You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance” (Psalm 32:3-7).
Have you noticed one of the major themes running through David’s writings? He paints a picture of utter trial and turmoil in his life, yet maintains an internal compass that always points to “true north.” Whereas most of us look for happiness based on external circumstances in our lives, David has discovered a deeper joy grounded in his inner self. Most of us strive for happiness that’s external and temporary. David teaches us to drive towards a place of deeper well-being, where we develop trust and hope in God that extends beyond our external realities.
Life of King David – His Conclusion
Yes, deep stuff! David has learned that happiness and joy are different things. Happiness is that fleeting state of emotion that’s dependant on doing. Today’s marketers know this! However, joy is a long-term process of the mind that’s dependant on being. For David, it’s the seasons of trial and suffering -- chaos and confusion -- that ultimately develop deeper and more profound joy. The key is to know God as your internal compass.
A. David proposes to build God a permanent house.
1. (1-3) Nathan’s premature advice to David.
Now it came to pass when the king was dwelling in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies all around, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells inside tent curtains." Then Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you."
a. The Lord had given him rest from all his enemies all around: This leads us to believe that the events of 2 Samuel 7 happened after the wars of conquest described in 2 Samuel 8. This section is placed before the war accounts in the text to show its greater importance.
b. I dwell in a house of cedar: Cedar wood was especially valued. This means that David lived in an expensive, beautiful home. When he remembered that the ark of God dwells inside tent curtains, the contrast bothered him. David was troubled by the thought that he lived in a nicer house than the ark of the covenant.
i. A house of cedar: "It was a remarkable contrast to the shelter of Adullam's cave." (Meyer)
ii. Without saying the specific words, David tells Nathan that he wants to build a temple to replace the tabernacle. More than 400 years before this, when Israel was in the wilderness, God commanded Moses to build a tent of meeting according to a specific pattern (Exodus 25:8-9). God never asked for a permanent building to replace the tent, but now David wants to do this for God.
iii. The tent of meeting - also known as the tabernacle - was perfectly suited to Israel in the wilderness, because they constantly moved. Now that Israel is securely in the land, and the tabernacle is in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:17), David thinks it would be better and more appropriate to build a temple to replace the tabernacle.
d. Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you: Nathan said this to David because it seemed good and reasonable. What could be wrong with David building a temple?
i. All that is in your heart shows that David's heart was filled with this question: “What can I do for God?” He was so filled with gratitude and concern for God's glory that he wanted to do something special for God.
2. (4-7) God’s response to David’s offer.
But it happened that night that the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying, "Go and tell My servant David, 'Thus says the Lord: "Would you build a house for Me to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house since the time that I brought the children of Israel up from Egypt, even to this day, but have moved about in a tent and in a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about with all the children of Israel, have I ever spoken a word to anyone from the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?'" '
a. That night that the word of the Lord came to Nathan: Nathan's response to David was presumptuous. He answered according to human judgment and common sense, but before the word of the Lord came to him.
i. "It is of the utmost importance that we should ever test our desires, even the highest and holiest of them, by His will. Work, excellent in itself, should never be undertaken, save at the express command of God. The passing of time will always vindicate the wisdom of the Divine will." (Morgan)
b. Would you build a house for Me to dwell in? God seems honored and “surprised” that David offered to build Him a house. "You want to build Me a house? No one has ever offered to do that before, and I never commanded anyone to do it."
i. David's wants to do more than God commands. This is a wonderful place to be in our relationship with God. Most of us are so stuck in the thinking, "How little can I do and still please the Lord?" that we never really want to do more than God commands.
ii. "Though the Lord refused to David the realization of his wish, he did it in a most gracious manner. He did not put the idea away from him in anger or disdain, as though David had cherished an unworthy desire; but he honored his servant even in the non-acceptance of his offer." (Spurgeon)
c. Would you build a house: David now knew that God didn't want him to build the temple, but David didn't respond by doing nothing. Instead of building the temple, David gathered all the materials for its construction so Solomon could build a glorious temple to God (1 Chronicles 29:2-9)
i. "If you cannot have what you hoped, do not sit down in despair and allow the energies of your life to run to waste; but arise, and gird yourself to help others to achieve. If you may not build, you may gather materials for him that shall. If you may not go down the mine, you can hold the ropes." (Meyer)
B. God proposes to build David a permanent house.
1. (8-9) God reminds David what He has done for him.
"Now therefore, thus shall you say to My servant David, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts: "I took you from the sheepfold, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over Israel. And I have been with you wherever you have gone, and have cut off all your enemies from before you, and have made you a great name, like the name of the great men who are on the earth.
a. I took you from the sheepfold, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people: God took David from the pasture to the throne.
b. I have been with you wherever you have gone: God protected David from all his enemies.
c. Have made you a great name: God made David's name great in all the earth.
2. (10-11) God promises two things to David.
"Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously, since the time that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel, and have caused you to rest from all your enemies. Also the Lord tells you that He will make you a house.
a. I will appoint a place for My people Israel: God promised David that under his reign, God would establish a permanent, secure, Israel. God promised this first because He knew that David, being a godly shepherd, was first concerned about the welfare of his people.
b. He will make you a house: God promises David that he will build him a house in the sense of establishing a dynasty for the house of David. This was an enduring legacy for David long after his death.
i. David wanted to build God a temple. God said, "Thank you David, but no thanks. Let me build you a house instead." This was a greater promise than David's offer to God, because David's house would last longer and be more glorious than the temple David wanted to build.
ii. God honored what David gave him, even though he only gave it to God in his sincere intention. There are some things that we want to give God, but are prevented from giving. In these cases God receives the intention as the gift.
iii. Why did God say, "No" to David's offer? Because David was a man of war, and God wanted a man of peace to build His temple. 1 Chronicles 22:8-10 explains this: But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight . . . a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest . . . He shall be build a house for My name.
iv. The explanation to David recorded in 1 Chronicles 22:8 came years afterwards. "It would have wounded David needlessly to have been told this at the time . . . Meanwhile David possessed his soul in patience, and said to himself, 'God has a reason; I cannot understand it, but it is well.' " (Meyer)
3. (12-17) God details His promise of a house for David.
"When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever."' " According to all these words and according to all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.
a. I will set up your seed after you: In this, God specifically promises a hereditary monarchy for the house of David. It was important for God to repeat this promise specifically, because there had never yet been a king succeeded by his son in Israel.
i. "The family of Saul became totally extinct; the family of David remained till the incarnation." (Clarke)
ii. This great promise that God made to David had only a future fulfillment. David would only benefit now from this promise through faith. If he had a "what's-in-it-for-me-right-now" attitude.
iii. "The joy which filled David’s bosom was a spiritual one, because he knew that Jesus would come of his race, and that an everlasting kingdom would be set up in his person, and in him should the Gentiles trust." (Spurgeon)
b. He shall build a house for My name: Though David would not build a temple for God, David's descendent would.
c. I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever: The family of David did rule over Israel for more than four centuries, but was eventually removed because of evil added upon evil. Yet out of the “stump” of Jesse, God raised up a new branch that would reign for ever and ever (Isaiah 11:1-2).
d. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him: This descendent of David will enjoy a special relationship with God. If he sins, God will not reject him. Instead, God will chasten him without rejecting him.
e. Your throne shall be established forever: God promises David that the reign of his dynasty will last forever.
i. Each of these great promises was partially fulfilled in Solomon, David’s son and successor to his throne.
Solomon ruled on David’s throne
God’s mercies never departed from Solomon, though he sinned
Solomon built God a magnificent house
ii. But the prophets foretold a greater fulfillment of these promises:
Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute righteousness in the earth. . . . Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE Lord OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jeremiah 23:5-6)
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. . . Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it . . . from that time forward, even forever. (Isaiah 9:6-7)
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end. (Luke 1:31-33)
iii. God’s promises to David are completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Jesus does reign, and will reign on David’s throne forever
The Father’s mercies never departed from Jesus, even when He was made sin for us
Jesus is building the Father a magnificent house (1 Corinthians 6:19) in the sense that we are God’s temples (1 Peter 2:5) and the church is God’s new house
C. David’s prayer of thanksgiving.
1. (18-24) He humbly glorifies God for His goodness.
Then King David went in and sat before the Lord; and he said: "Who am I, O Lord God? And what is my house, that You have brought me this far? And yet this was a small thing in Your sight, O Lord God; and You have also spoken of Your servant's house for a great while to come. Is this the manner of man, O Lord God? Now what more can David say to You? For You, Lord God, know Your servant. For Your word's sake, and according to Your own heart, You have done all these great things, to make Your servant know them. Therefore You are great, O Lord God. For there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears. And who is like Your people, like Israel, the one nation on the earth whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, to make for Himself a name; and to do for Youself great and awesome deeds for Your land; before Your people whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt, the nations, and their gods? For You have made Your people Israel Your very own people forever; and You, Lord, have become their God."
a. Who am I, O Lord God? . . . Therefore You are great, O Lord God: When David received this spectacular gift, he didn't think it made him any greater. In David's eyes it made God greater.
i. David's attitude wasn't "I am so great that even God's gives me gifts." His attitude was, "God is so great that He gives even me gifts." We should receive salvation and every blessing with the same attitude. God's giving reflects the greatness of the Giver, not the receiver.
b. Your servant: David's humble reception of this gift is shown by the repetition of the phrase Your servant - ten times in this prayer.
i. It shows that David humbly accepted God's "no" when he wanted to build the temple. "There are some professors who would do a great thing if they might, but if they are not permitted to act a shining part they are in the sulks and angry with their God. David when his proposal was set aside found it in his heart not to murmur, but to pray." (Spurgeon)
2. (25-29) David boldly asks that the promise be fulfilled as spoken.
"Now, O Lord God, the word which You have spoken concerning Your servant and concerning his house, establish it forever and do as You have said. So let Your name be magnified forever, saying, 'The Lord of hosts is the God over Israel.' And let the house of Your servant David be established before You. For You, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, have revealed this to Your servant, saying, 'I will build you a house.' Therefore Your servant has found it in his heart to pray this prayer to You. And now, O Lord God, You are God, and Your words are true, and You have promised this goodness to Your servant. Now therefore, let it please You to bless the house of Your servant, that it may continue forever before You; for You, O Lord God, have spoken it, and with Your blessing let the house of Your servant be blessed forever."
a. Establish it forever and do as You have said: David's prayer boldly asks God to do what He promised. This isn't passive prayer that says, "Well God, do whatever You want to do - I don't really care one way or another." This isn't arrogant prayer that says, "Well God, let me tell You what to do." This is bold prayer that says, "God, here is Your promise - now I trust You to fulfill it grandly and to be faithful to Your word."
i. The phrase "therefore Your servant has found it in his heart to pray this prayer to You" emphasizes this. David is saying, "I'm only praying because You promised. You told me that this is what You want to do."
ii. "God sent the promise on purpose to be used. If I see a Bank of England note, it is a promise for a certain amount of money, and I take it and use it. But oh I my friend, do try and use God’s promises; nothing pleases God better than to see his promises put in circulation; he loves to see his children bring them up to him, and say, 'Lord, do as thou hast said.' And let me tell you that it glorifies God to use his promises." (Spurgeon)
iii. This kind of prayer appropriates God's promise. Just because God promises doesn't mean that we possess. Through believing prayer like this, God promises and we appropriate. If we don't appropriate in faith, God's promise is left unclaimed.
We may appropriate His promise for forgiveness: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9)
We may appropriate His promise for peace: Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you: not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid (John 14:27)
We may appropriate His promise for guidance: I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go: I will guide you with My eye (Psalm 32:8)
We may appropriate His promise for growth: He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6)
We may appropriate His promise for help: Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace of help in time of need (Hebrews 4:16)
Senenmut in the Hebrew Sources and the Compelling Reasons to Regard Solomon and Hatshepsut as Contemporaries
Compared to what we could write about Senenmut, the Biblical information of the activities of Solomon during the second half of his 40 year reign are meager indeed. We believe that the reason for that fact may be that he indeed may have spent much of this time in Egypt as Senenmut, the confidant and architect of the Egypt under his friend, Queen/Pharaoh Hatshepsut. In traveling to Egypt he followed the footsteps of his ancestors, Abraham and Jacob. Solomon also may have admired the patriarch Joseph and what he did for Egypt and his people. As far as the name `slmn (slmh)' and `snnmt' is concerned for most of the history of Egypt the `t' sound was not pronounced leaving us with `snnm-' or by the rules of transliteration `slnm' which is the same as `slmn' when writing only consonants.
Senmut's Call
From one of the statuettes of Senenmut we gather that Hatshepsut had called (The word used is `commanded') him into the land of Egypt following the death of Thutmose II.
"I was in this land under her command since the occurrence of the death of her predecessor..." That statement, combined with Senmut's information that his `ancestors were not found in writing', or also translated as "whose name is not to be found among the annals of the ancestors' indicates to us that Senenmut was not of Egyptian origins.
Other possible hints that Senenmut was a foreigner in Egypt was his fascination with the Egyptian language, his `idiosyncrasies in regard to the uncommon substitution of certain hieroglyphics' and his penchant for creating cryptograms as for example to the throne name of Hatshepsut, `Make-ra'.
1. P.Dorman, `The Monuments of Senenmut', (London, 1988), op. cit., p. 175.
2. J. Baike, `A History of Egypt' (London, 1929), Vol. II, p. 80.
3. Dorman, op. cit., p. 138, 165.
In the revision it also comes to light that Senmut's arrival `in this land of Egypt' was a direct result of Hatshepsut's visit to Jerusalem as the Queen of Sheba. We read:
"King Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked." 1.Kings 10:13
The Queen of Sheba had hung on Solomon's every word. She had been so convinced by what he had to tell her that "there was no more spirit in her." 1.Kings 10:3,5
What impressed the Queen most during her visit in Jerusalem, apart from his renowned wisdom? It was Solomon's palace, his officials and how things were organized and maintained, his fleet of merchant mariners (1.Kings 10:11), his parks and gardens (Song of Songs 5:1; 6:2), the Temple and its sacrifices (1.Kings 10:4-5); in short, Solomon's civil and religious administration. Interestingly enough we also find in Egypt from this revised time for Enene and Rekhmire for example, the latter being the famous vizier of Thutmose III, a new emphasize to illustrate their garden in their tomb art. His was the age of silver which he received in great abundance, 1.Kings 11:27; 2.Chronicles 1:15. In fact so much so, that we are told that he made the floor to walk on in his palace of shining silver. [1500] Not only did Solomon use silver in abundance in his constructions but the other viziers, Senenmut/Solomon's associates, did too.
Another highly placed official in the days of Hatshepsut was Ineni who wrote:
"Her majesty praised me, she loved me, she recognized my worth at her court, she presented me with things, she magnified me, she filled my house with silver and gold, with all beautiful stuffs of the royal house." [1600]
Thutiy, Senenmut's right hand man, his titles were:
"Hereditary prince, count, overseer of the double house-silver, overseer of the double gold-house, great favorite of the Lord of Two Lands, Thutiy. ..."
Works in Deir el-Bahari
"`Most Splendid' the temple of myriads of years; its great doors fashioned of black copper, the inlaid figures of electrum.
`Khikhet', the great seat of Amon, his horizon in the west; all its doors of real cedar, wrought with bronze.
`The house of Amon', his enduring horizon for eternity; its floor wrought with gold and silver; its beauty was like the horizon of heaven.
`a great shrine' of ebony of Nubia; the stairs beneath it, high and wide, of pure alabaster of Hatnub.
`Palace' of the god, wrought with gold and [silver]; it illuminated the faces (of people) with its brightness." [1700]
Senenmut himself wrote:
"I was a foreman of foremen, superior of the great, [overseer] of all [works] of the house of silver, conductor of every handicraft, chief of the prophets of Montu in Hermonthis, Senenmut." [1800]
For we read: "And all king Solomon's drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were pure gold; none were of silver: it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon." 1.Kings 10:21. Is it just coincident that silver was also abundantly available in the days of Hatshepsut? Could it be that Solomon just worked the same way he had done in Israel? The court of Solomon consumed in one day "30 measures of fine flour, 60 measures of meal, 10 fat oxen, and 20 oxen out of the pastures, and 100 sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fellowdeer, and fatted fowl..." 1.Kings 4:22,23; [60 `measures' is probably 185 bushels or 6.6 kiloliters. `Meal' is another type of flower, `harts' are elk, `roebucks' are deer bucks, `fellowdeer' are probably gazelles.] In other words Solomon's court was the size of a city.
Some might argue that this is nothing special for Israel and if Solomon was such a great personality in Israel where is the evidence? To this we replay that the wealth and evidence of Jerusalem and of all Judah and Israel has been robbed from them by Thutmose III/Shishak, the local population, countless intrusions by enemies, destructions and occupations.
The Fame of Senenmut/Solomon
It would be quite a natural plan on the part of the Queen to look for support in her sudden rise to the political forefront in Egypt upon the death of the king. Just like Solomon had risen to kingship while still quite young, so she too. And we know that the one person who probably contributed most to her success in government was her chief steward, Senenmut, a canny politician and a brilliant administrator who rose to become the Queen's most favored official. No one besides Solomon was better qualified for this position. How totally his interests gravitated away from Israel and toward Egypt may perhaps best be understood by the influence Egyptian Women may have had on him.
That Hatshepsut indeed regarded Senenmut as her mentor is confirmed by an inscription found on one of his Cairo statues according to which Senenmut was one "whose opinion [Hatshpesut] desired for [herself], who pleases the mistress of [Egypt] with his utterances." [1900]
In these statements we learn that Senenmut was both, `chief spokesman of her estates' meaning the material wealth and properties of the royal household were placed under his supervision, and `judge in the entire land' of Egypt.
Similarly, Solomon was called `judge' in and of Israel. [1.Kings 3:9]
He was a Tutor
The block statues of Senenmut cradling Neferrure in his arms are well known. As far as Solomon is concerned the biblical book of the Proverbs of Solomon are eloquent enough to realize that Solomon also was an educator often addressing the young to make good choices. [2000]
Senmut's Successes
The period of Solomon/Senmut's activities in Egypt would fall during the last half of his time as King over Israel, and during the first 2/3 of the reign of Hatshepsut. Both Solomon's years of serving the God of Israel and his apostasy ought to be reflected in his abundant inscriptions. Senenmut as the chief architect was a natural choice considering his experience gained from building the terraced Temple of Jerusalem also using square pillars. Comparing this information with the construction of the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahari also built on three terraces and employing square pillars explains the history of these edifices quite well. Local conditions required the approaches to the Jerusalem temple to be constructed on ascending platforms. As a result of that the Songs of Mounting (Shir ha-maaloth; in German `Lied im höheren Chor'), which are included among the Psalms, were sung by priests while ascending the terraces leading up to the temple proper. [2100]
The imagery of the swallow
The incidental mention of the swallow occurs only once in the writings of Solomon. We read in context:
"As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool. As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come." Proverbs 26:1-2.
In ancient Egyptian imagery archaeologists found at times a tiny, standing or crouching swallow with a sun disk adorning garments (kilts). Such a swallow was found `attached to the lower border of the hip drape' on a relief block of Amenhotep III, on a sheet-gold belt of Tutankhamon (as a stylistically represented swallow) and on a relief of the Osiris complex of the temple of Seti the Great at Abydos. [2200]
The hieroglyphic image of a swallow without a sun disc occurs in a group of hieroglyphic characters transliterated as the `Arch-seer', at Heliopolis, and in words relating to priests, ie. ura herp hem, priests in the service of Ptah. [2300]
Perhaps Solomon knew something about Egypt to explain this feature and the Solomonic allusion holds the secret to the meaning of the Egyptian swallow with a sun disc and written by itself - to hold off or divert a curse.
Senmut's Administration
For all the genious Solomon displayed the resources of his people were too few to sustain such affluence of life style and government for very long. Heavy taxation became the norm in Israel and led to the dissolution of the state during the reign of his son Rehoboam.
Solomon's/Senmut's Religious Functions
Like Solomon was a king and also acted the part of a priest (1.Kings 8:22), so Senmut's chief role was also a religious one.
Solomon's/Senmut's Actions Abroad
During the last 15-16 years of Solomon he was a world wide trader.
1. He shared the trade of the `ships of Tarshish' with Hiram of Tyre, 1.Kings 10:11.
2. He received gifts worldwide from the 'kings of the earth', 1.Kings 10:23-25.
3. He imported horses and chariots and then resold them to the kings of Syria and the Hittites, 1.Kings 10:28-29 (transl. from the Zürcher Transl.) [2350].
"And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt (`Mizraim') and Qoa (Qwh) ..."
4. The scriptures give no clear indication that Solomon was in Jerusalem during any of this time.
Similarly Senenmut wrote:
"...The labor of all countries was under my charge." [2400]
A wooden grip with a square hole on one end was found bearing this hieroglyphic inscription: "Captain of Senenmut, Nb-irj". [2500]
According to the examiner, traces of leather reams in the hole show that this was used as a whip. However, it could also have been a whip used to drive a team of horses.
This reminds us of the words: "... upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice to this day; but of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen". [1.Kings 9:21,22]
Numerous sherds (ostraca) were also found bearing the name `Senenmut'. The most important one reads: (verso) .... wdnt-bread-container ... 1; incense for offerings, 2 vessels; and (hr?) variouses breads, 300; mr pr R3-3w znw-bread, 1; wdnt-bread-container, 1; shn-bread, 2; small bird, 1; incense for offering, 2 vessels; 2; ... znw-bread, 1
(recto) year 16, 1. month 3ht, 8. day. Assigning of workers for the necropolis (sdmw-s) of Senenmut under two overseers. Those belonging to Ipr-wr: captain Mcj ... untill the 1. month 3ht 11. day; captain Dj.f-drt ...f; Msw; Minj; Sm-hr; Imn-m-h3t, all together 6;"[2600]
This incidental year seems to indicate that Solomon/Senenmut fulfilled his functions for at least that length of time.
Senenmut, the Architect
Just like Solomon began to use forced labor in Israel to accomplish his many constructions so Senenmut too was both, `foreman and overseer' of Egyptian work gangs. He was involved in the construction of the temples of Karnak, Luxor, Deir el Bahari and Armant.
Among artifacts found were also stones bearing the name of Solomon/Senenmut as a dedication: "The mr pr Nb-ntrw for mr pr Senenmut, the overseer of the stone masons Thutmosis", or "His beloved brother Amenemhet" [2700]
The here represented titles of Solomon/Senenmut (mr pr), still ingratiated with things Egyptian, are regarded as pertaining to his functions in the temple of Amun.
The name of Senenmut was also found on foundation stones underneath the Hathor chapel at Deir-el-Bahari. It says: "The good god `Mt-k-r', beloved of Hathor, the first of Thebes, located at Dsr-dsrw, mr pr Senenmut" [2800]
The appearance of the name of a king (Hatshepsut/Makere) together with Senenmut on stones like this is unique in the history of Egypt.
Senmut's Temple
The Astronomical Ceiling
The great versatility of Senenmut/Solomon is revealed in the paintings of his funerary complex [2850].
In the revision it also comes to light that Senmut's arrival `in this land of Egypt' was a direct result of Hatshepsut's visit to Jerusalem as the Queen of Sheba. We read:
"King Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked." 1.Kings 10:13
The Queen of Sheba had hung on Solomon's every word. She had been so convinced by what he had to tell her that "there was no more spirit in her." 1.Kings 10:3,5
What impressed the Queen most during her visit in Jerusalem, apart from his renowned wisdom? It was Solomon's palace, his officials and how things were organized and maintained, his fleet of merchant mariners (1.Kings 10:11), his parks and gardens (Song of Songs 5:1; 6:2), the Temple and its sacrifices (1.Kings 10:4-5); in short, Solomon's civil and religious administration. Interestingly enough we also find in Egypt from this revised time for Enene and Rekhmire for example, the latter being the famous vizier of Thutmose III, a new emphasize to illustrate their garden in their tomb art. His was the age of silver which he received in great abundance, 1.Kings 11:27; 2.Chronicles 1:15. In fact so much so, that we are told that he made the floor to walk on in his palace of shining silver. [1500] Not only did Solomon use silver in abundance in his constructions but the other viziers, Senenmut/Solomon's associates, did too.
Another highly placed official in the days of Hatshepsut was Ineni who wrote:
"Her majesty praised me, she loved me, she recognized my worth at her court, she presented me with things, she magnified me, she filled my house with silver and gold, with all beautiful stuffs of the royal house." [1600]
Thutiy, Senenmut's right hand man, his titles were:
"Hereditary prince, count, overseer of the double house-silver, overseer of the double gold-house, great favorite of the Lord of Two Lands, Thutiy. ..."
Works in Deir el-Bahari
"`Most Splendid' the temple of myriads of years; its great doors fashioned of black copper, the inlaid figures of electrum.
`Khikhet', the great seat of Amon, his horizon in the west; all its doors of real cedar, wrought with bronze.
`The house of Amon', his enduring horizon for eternity; its floor wrought with gold and silver; its beauty was like the horizon of heaven.
`a great shrine' of ebony of Nubia; the stairs beneath it, high and wide, of pure alabaster of Hatnub.
`Palace' of the god, wrought with gold and [silver]; it illuminated the faces (of people) with its brightness." [1700]
Senenmut himself wrote:
"I was a foreman of foremen, superior of the great, [overseer] of all [works] of the house of silver, conductor of every handicraft, chief of the prophets of Montu in Hermonthis, Senenmut." [1800]
For we read: "And all king Solomon's drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were pure gold; none were of silver: it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon." 1.Kings 10:21. Is it just coincident that silver was also abundantly available in the days of Hatshepsut? Could it be that Solomon just worked the same way he had done in Israel? The court of Solomon consumed in one day "30 measures of fine flour, 60 measures of meal, 10 fat oxen, and 20 oxen out of the pastures, and 100 sheep, beside harts, and roebucks, and fellowdeer, and fatted fowl..." 1.Kings 4:22,23; [60 `measures' is probably 185 bushels or 6.6 kiloliters. `Meal' is another type of flower, `harts' are elk, `roebucks' are deer bucks, `fellowdeer' are probably gazelles.] In other words Solomon's court was the size of a city.
Some might argue that this is nothing special for Israel and if Solomon was such a great personality in Israel where is the evidence? To this we replay that the wealth and evidence of Jerusalem and of all Judah and Israel has been robbed from them by Thutmose III/Shishak, the local population, countless intrusions by enemies, destructions and occupations.
The Fame of Senenmut/Solomon
It would be quite a natural plan on the part of the Queen to look for support in her sudden rise to the political forefront in Egypt upon the death of the king. Just like Solomon had risen to kingship while still quite young, so she too. And we know that the one person who probably contributed most to her success in government was her chief steward, Senenmut, a canny politician and a brilliant administrator who rose to become the Queen's most favored official. No one besides Solomon was better qualified for this position. How totally his interests gravitated away from Israel and toward Egypt may perhaps best be understood by the influence Egyptian Women may have had on him.
That Hatshepsut indeed regarded Senenmut as her mentor is confirmed by an inscription found on one of his Cairo statues according to which Senenmut was one "whose opinion [Hatshpesut] desired for [herself], who pleases the mistress of [Egypt] with his utterances." [1900]
In these statements we learn that Senenmut was both, `chief spokesman of her estates' meaning the material wealth and properties of the royal household were placed under his supervision, and `judge in the entire land' of Egypt.
Similarly, Solomon was called `judge' in and of Israel. [1.Kings 3:9]
He was a Tutor
The block statues of Senenmut cradling Neferrure in his arms are well known. As far as Solomon is concerned the biblical book of the Proverbs of Solomon are eloquent enough to realize that Solomon also was an educator often addressing the young to make good choices. [2000]
Senmut's Successes
The period of Solomon/Senmut's activities in Egypt would fall during the last half of his time as King over Israel, and during the first 2/3 of the reign of Hatshepsut. Both Solomon's years of serving the God of Israel and his apostasy ought to be reflected in his abundant inscriptions. Senenmut as the chief architect was a natural choice considering his experience gained from building the terraced Temple of Jerusalem also using square pillars. Comparing this information with the construction of the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahari also built on three terraces and employing square pillars explains the history of these edifices quite well. Local conditions required the approaches to the Jerusalem temple to be constructed on ascending platforms. As a result of that the Songs of Mounting (Shir ha-maaloth; in German `Lied im höheren Chor'), which are included among the Psalms, were sung by priests while ascending the terraces leading up to the temple proper. [2100]
The imagery of the swallow
The incidental mention of the swallow occurs only once in the writings of Solomon. We read in context:
"As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool. As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come." Proverbs 26:1-2.
In ancient Egyptian imagery archaeologists found at times a tiny, standing or crouching swallow with a sun disk adorning garments (kilts). Such a swallow was found `attached to the lower border of the hip drape' on a relief block of Amenhotep III, on a sheet-gold belt of Tutankhamon (as a stylistically represented swallow) and on a relief of the Osiris complex of the temple of Seti the Great at Abydos. [2200]
The hieroglyphic image of a swallow without a sun disc occurs in a group of hieroglyphic characters transliterated as the `Arch-seer', at Heliopolis, and in words relating to priests, ie. ura herp hem, priests in the service of Ptah. [2300]
Perhaps Solomon knew something about Egypt to explain this feature and the Solomonic allusion holds the secret to the meaning of the Egyptian swallow with a sun disc and written by itself - to hold off or divert a curse.
Senmut's Administration
For all the genious Solomon displayed the resources of his people were too few to sustain such affluence of life style and government for very long. Heavy taxation became the norm in Israel and led to the dissolution of the state during the reign of his son Rehoboam.
Solomon's/Senmut's Religious Functions
Like Solomon was a king and also acted the part of a priest (1.Kings 8:22), so Senmut's chief role was also a religious one.
Solomon's/Senmut's Actions Abroad
During the last 15-16 years of Solomon he was a world wide trader.
1. He shared the trade of the `ships of Tarshish' with Hiram of Tyre, 1.Kings 10:11.
2. He received gifts worldwide from the 'kings of the earth', 1.Kings 10:23-25.
3. He imported horses and chariots and then resold them to the kings of Syria and the Hittites, 1.Kings 10:28-29 (transl. from the Zürcher Transl.) [2350].
"And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt (`Mizraim') and Qoa (Qwh) ..."
4. The scriptures give no clear indication that Solomon was in Jerusalem during any of this time.
Similarly Senenmut wrote:
"...The labor of all countries was under my charge." [2400]
A wooden grip with a square hole on one end was found bearing this hieroglyphic inscription: "Captain of Senenmut, Nb-irj". [2500]
According to the examiner, traces of leather reams in the hole show that this was used as a whip. However, it could also have been a whip used to drive a team of horses.
This reminds us of the words: "... upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice to this day; but of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen". [1.Kings 9:21,22]
Numerous sherds (ostraca) were also found bearing the name `Senenmut'. The most important one reads: (verso) .... wdnt-bread-container ... 1; incense for offerings, 2 vessels; and (hr?) variouses breads, 300; mr pr R3-3w znw-bread, 1; wdnt-bread-container, 1; shn-bread, 2; small bird, 1; incense for offering, 2 vessels; 2; ... znw-bread, 1
(recto) year 16, 1. month 3ht, 8. day. Assigning of workers for the necropolis (sdmw-s) of Senenmut under two overseers. Those belonging to Ipr-wr: captain Mcj ... untill the 1. month 3ht 11. day; captain Dj.f-drt ...f; Msw; Minj; Sm-hr; Imn-m-h3t, all together 6;"[2600]
This incidental year seems to indicate that Solomon/Senenmut fulfilled his functions for at least that length of time.
Senenmut, the Architect
Just like Solomon began to use forced labor in Israel to accomplish his many constructions so Senenmut too was both, `foreman and overseer' of Egyptian work gangs. He was involved in the construction of the temples of Karnak, Luxor, Deir el Bahari and Armant.
Among artifacts found were also stones bearing the name of Solomon/Senenmut as a dedication: "The mr pr Nb-ntrw for mr pr Senenmut, the overseer of the stone masons Thutmosis", or "His beloved brother Amenemhet" [2700]
The here represented titles of Solomon/Senenmut (mr pr), still ingratiated with things Egyptian, are regarded as pertaining to his functions in the temple of Amun.
The name of Senenmut was also found on foundation stones underneath the Hathor chapel at Deir-el-Bahari. It says: "The good god `Mt-k-r', beloved of Hathor, the first of Thebes, located at Dsr-dsrw, mr pr Senenmut" [2800]
The appearance of the name of a king (Hatshepsut/Makere) together with Senenmut on stones like this is unique in the history of Egypt.
Senmut's Temple
The Astronomical Ceiling
The great versatility of Senenmut/Solomon is revealed in the paintings of his funerary complex [2850].
The ceiling is divided into 2 parts by several transverse bands of texts, the central section contains the names of Hatshepsut and Senenmut. The southern half contains a list decans (decanal stars) derived from coffins of the Late Middle Kingdom. The northern half is decorated with the earliest depiction of the northern constellations; 4 planets (Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn) are portrayed. The lunar calendar is represented by 12 large circles. Also according to the apogryphical book `Wisdom of Solomon' the king had extensive knowledge in astronomical matters. We read:
"For he has given me certain knowledge of all things, that I know how the world was made, and the power of the elements; the beginning of time, start and the middle; how the day waxes and wanes, how seasons change, and how the year runs about, how the stars stand in their place." translated from the German "Denn er hat mir gegeben gewisse Erkenntnisse aller Dinge, daß ich weiß, wie die Welt gemacht ist, und die Kraft der Elemente; der Zeit Anfang, Ende und Mitte; wie der Tag zu-und abnimmt; wie die Zeit des Jahres sich ändert, und wie das Jahr herumläuft; wie die Sterne stehen." [Wisdom 7:17-19; Weisheit 7:17-19]
Grimal wrote: `Senmut's constructions show that he was an architect, but other dimensions of his career are suggested by the presence of an astronomical ceiling in his tomb at Deir el Bahari and about 150 ostraca in his tomb at Qurna, including several drawings (notably two plans of the tomb itself), as well as lists, calculations, various reports and some copies of religious, funerary and literary works. No doubt the workmen were instructed to decorate his tomb with items of interest in the life of Senemut.'
It appears the Israelite patriarchs had a vast amount of knowledge in astronomical matters for we read:
"[Abraham] communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for, before Abram came to Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning..." [2900]
Even if this passage might express exaggerated information. If even a morsel of truth is expressed here that would be enough to grasp how biblical longevity among the patriarchs allowed them to come to such knowledge.
Perhaps Solomon had learned some of the wisdom of his father David on the sun, moon and stars. For we read statements like the following about the apparent astronomical understanding of their time:
"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained ..." Psalm 8:3
"To him that by wisdom made the heavens ... To him that stretched out the earth above the waters ... To him that made great lights ... The sun to rule by day ... The moon and stars to rule by night ..." Psalm 136
"He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names." Psalm 147:4
Later Job would add his insights to the biblical treasures of heavenly knowledge. He wrote:
"He strechted out the north over the empty place, and hung the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7
"Can you bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of the Orion?" Job 38:31
Like other fathers, David probably spoke to his young son Solomon about God, the heavens, faith, the history of his people and the hopes for the future. All he knew he passed on to his young son, the future king.
The Commemorative Obelisks
Is it possible to proof that Senenmut was actually, physically present in Egypt? The best occasions for that seem to be in year 7 during Hatshepsut's coronation and again in year 9, when Hatshepsut summoned Senenmut and Nehesi and gave them places of honor, while she proclaimed to the assembly the success of her Punt venture and again during several occasions in her 16th year.
An Image from Genesis
Certainly his Hebrew upbringing should show itself in some way in his life in Egypt. After Hatshepsut had returned from her Punt voyage, she gathered together all her nobles and proclaimed before them the great things she had done in the behest of her father Amon-Ra. It is at the conclusion of this speech to her nobles that we encounter a scriptural image when she says, `I have made for Amon-Ra a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in'. `Records', Sec. 295. This is a phrase which reminds us of the book of Genesis and God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening.
An Image from the Psalms
We find other utterances of Hatshepsut which remind us of the Psalms. On her commemorative obelisks she wrote:
`I did it under Amon-Ra's command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doings ... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...' [3000]
We compare this with the words of David's Psalms.
`Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob - For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it.'Psalm 132:1-5, 13, 14.
An Image from the Proverbs
In another, related verse of the Punt reliefs, referring to Amon-Ra's leading of the expedition to `the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land' [3100], the god speaks of his creating of the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms that remind us of the words that Solomon wrote about Wisdom's role in the work of Creation: `I, Wisdom ... was with [the Creator], forming all things, and was His delight every day, playing before Him at all times, playing on the surface of His earth, delighting to be with the sons of men' (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31) In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the goddess of wisdom:
`... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt ...' [3200]
Interestingly, the original roles of the goddesses Hathor and Isis, in the prestigious Heliopolitan 'theology', were ones very similar to those of Moses' sister and mother, respectively (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Thus we read in Grimal [3300]:
`Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...'. Compare this with the action of Moses's mother and sister: `[Moses's mother] put the child in [the basket] and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. And his sister stood at a distance .... Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, 'Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?' ... And the child grew ...' (Exodus: 2:3-4,7,10)
Even though the establishment does not allow for such parallels and deductions we are making in this paper, the reader can see why they do not allow such studies for it will invariably lead to the type of conclusions presented and make havoc of their darling study of Egyptology. For this reason quoting from certain books is taboo among the proponents of today's Egyptology and like the proverbial ostrich they bury their .... No, that couldn't possibly be so?
Damien Mackey presents new evidence that Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba.
….
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
CHRONOLOGY AND CATASTROPHISM
REVIEW
1997:1
Editor's Notes
Probably few articles caused more disappointment in SIS circles than John Bimson's 1986 `Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba', which presented strong evidence and argument against Velikovsky's proposal that the mysterious and exotic queen who visited King Solomon was none other than the famous Egyptian female pharaoh. This removed one of the key identifications in Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos historical reconstruction and was a key factor in the rejection of his proposed chronology by Bimson and others in favour of the more moderate `New Chronology'. It also took away what had seemed a romantic and satisfactory solution to the mystery of the identity and origins of Solomon's visitor, leaving her once more as an historical enigma.
In this issue, Damien Mackey returns to the question, challenging Bimson's conclusions, giving a new twist to Velikovsky's scheme - and throwing up some controversial identifications of other famous Egyptian (and Greek) historical figures. No doubt it will not be the last word on the matter but maybe it will stimulate fresh discussion about the identities and lives of these people whose names and stories have been handed down to us from ancient times ….
Damien Mackey (MA, BPhil, MA) has two Master of Arts Degrees, from the University of Sydney (Australia). His first thesis `The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar', was a ‘demolition job’ on conventional Egyptian dating. In his reconstruction (i) the Exodus occurred at the end of Egypt's Old Kingdom (EBA); (ii) the MBI people were the Israelites of the Exodus/Conquest and (iii) the early monarchy of Israel was contemporary with the early New Kingdom of Egypt. On these points his reconstruction is close to Donovan Courville's in his `The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications'. Mackey’s second thesis, ‘A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background’, was his attempt to develop a more acceptable alternative to the conventional chronology.
New evidence is brought forward in support of Velikovsky's ingenious thesis that Hatshepsut, the female pharaoh of Egypt's 18th Dynasty, was in fact the biblical Queen of Sheba. That new evidence is the presence of Solomon himself in the Egyptian inscriptions in the person of Hatshepsut's great Steward, Senenmut.
<INTRODUCTION
A decade has elapsed since Dr. John Bimson wrote his probing critique [I] of Immanuel Velikovsky's thesis that Queen Hatshepsut was the biblical Queen of Sheba [2]. In the interim, there has been a succession of other critiques - and new chronologies - by James, Rohl, Sieff, Sweeney, and others. Dr. Bimson, by submitting Velikovsky's thesis to intense scrutiny, has done a great service, forcing those who would wish to defend the idea that Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba to dig deeper and to come up with more cogent arguments.
In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut [3], Iendeavoured to answer objections raised by Bimson and bring forward some new evidence in support of Velikovsky's conclusion. There are reasons for believing that the biblical queen was not an Arabian queen from Yemen (as Bimson and others have proposed) but an Egyptian queen ruling over Egypt/Ethiopia, Hatshepsut.
Her Name
Contrary to Bimson's claim, there is no grammatical obstacle to Velikovsky's view that `Sheba' was actually the queen's personal name. The construct state is used in various places in Hebrew for an ‘Apposition’ - a proper name or a description of a proper name [4]. According to Velikovsky, Shebawas probably a nickname for Hatshepsut in the close relationships that existed between the 18th Dynasty and the House of David and in Ethiopian legend Solomon's visitor was called Makeda, a name almost identical to Hatshepsut's throne name, Make-ra (Maat-ka-re).
Her Nationality
Bimson argued that the biblical description had an Arabian flavour, with camels, gold, spices and precious stones but all the monarchs who came to hear Solomon's wisdom brought `silver and gold ... myrrh, spices ...' (cf.I Kings 10:25 & II Chronicles 10:24). Ever since the time of Joseph, an Arabian camel train had operated between Egypt and northern Palestine, carrying similar types of gifts (Genesis 37:25). The New Testament evidence that Solomon's visitor was a ‘Queen of the south [who] came from the ends of the earth ...’ (cf. Matthew 12:42 & Luke 11:31)supports an Egypto-Ethiopian identity. In the Book of Daniel, the phrase `of the south' was used with various rulers to designate rulership over Egypt and Ethiopia(cf. Daniel 11:5, 6, 9, 11, 25, 40). ‘Ends of the earth’ is an Egyptianism, in line with what Professor A. Yahuda has written about the influence of the Egyptian language on the Scriptures [5]. Both phrases point us in the direction of Egypt and Ethiopia.
Bimson suggested that the biblical queen was from Yemen in Arabia, but van Beek [6] has described the geographical isolation of Yemen and the hazards of a journey from there to Palestine and none of the numerous inscriptions from this southern part of Arabia refers to the famous queen. Civilisation in southern Arabia may not really have begun to flourish until some two to three centuries after Solomon's era, as Bimson himself has noted [7] and no 10th century BC Arabian queen has ever been named or proposed as the Queen of Sheba. If she hailed from Yemen, who was she?
Her Family
I accept Velikovsky’s basic alignment of Israel's early kingdom with the 18th Dynasty, with pharaoh Thutmose I as Solomon's father-in-law Thutmose I had only two daughters; Hatshepsut and another who died as a child.
The archaeological evidence for destruction at Gezer in Late Bronze I-II that Bimson [8] has equated with its sacking by Solomon's Egyptian father-in-law (cf. I Kings 9:16), well fits the era of Thutmose I [9].
Her Religion
During Hatshepsut's co-rulership with Thutmose III, there was a trend towards monotheism in Egypt, with Amon-Ra being identified in inscriptions as ‘King of All Gods’ [10]. The Egyptians were admittedly polytheistic, with a marked inclination towards idolatry but in the case of Amon-Ra, Mallon [11] has shown, this plurality was of titles rather than of gods. The devotion to Amon-Ra developed at the time Joseph [12], so the monotheism of Hatshepsut's time would have related specifically to the worship of the God of Joseph. Joseph's influence over Egypt must have been enormous. Pharaoh gave him for a wife the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis (Genesis 41:45), and the highly religious Joseph would undoubtedly have exerted a considerable theological influence on the system of Heliopolis [13].
The influence of Hebrew wisdom on the Egyptians did not end with Joseph. Hatshepsut's own inscriptions betray Israelite influence - especially from Genesis, the Psalms and, most interestingly, the writings generally attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, Wisdom, Song of Songs) [14]. From the perspective of Thebes there were several further interesting similarities between these two periods (apart from the prominence of Amon-Ra [or Ptah]) [15].
The Punt Expedition
Bimson's analysis of the Punt expedition (and the lack of reference in the Old Testament to Egypt in relation to the Queen of Sheba) constituted his most formidable argument against Velikovsky's thesis. Bimson made a detailed comparison in situ between the Egyptian bas-reliefs and the biblical description and concluded that the match was extremely poor. The gifts given by the Egyptians to the Puntites were insignificant compared with those given by the Queen of Sheba to Solomon. And Bimson also found no evidence in the inscriptions to support Velikovsky's view that Hatshepsut had actually gone in person to Punt (whereas the Queen of Sheba had most certainly gone in person to Jerusalem).
However, on the basis of Dorman's chronology of Hatshepsut's, era [16], the Punt expedition is actually irrelevant to the matter. Velikovsky had made a significant chronological miscalculation when arguing that Hatshepsut would have been influenced, in the design of her own temple, by what she saw in Jerusalem. Hatshepsut would already have commenced the building of her temple (and would a fortiori have been in possession of the plans for it) before she launched her Punt expedition as Pharaoh of Egypt. (See Appendix A for a revised explanation of the Punt venture.)
For, whilst Velikovsky was quite correct in his view that Hatshepsut had been influenced in her temple design by what she saw in Jerusalem, the fact is that she would have needed to have gone to Jerusalem before her having launched the Punt expedition, i.e. while she was still only ‘queen’ in Egypt. Both the Old and New Testaments specifically entitle Solomon's visitor ‘queen’, which is a significant chronological clue.
2. SENENMUT IN HATSHEPSUT'S
QUEENSHIP (Regnal years 1-6)
Velikovsky had claimed to have found in writings about the Queen of Sheba a profile of Hatshepsut, sovereign of Egypt. Can we find any trace of King Solomon in Egyptian records?
I believe that we can, and that Senenmut was Solomon himself (Heb. Shelomoh).Practically all the inscriptional evidence is favourable to this except for a snag in relation to Senenmut's tomb complex. Senenmut was honoured with a lavish tomb - two tombs in fact [17]. He was not buried in either of them and it has been argued that he was never intended to be [l8]. Senenmut's parents are supposed to have been buried together in one of these tombs - but Solomon's father, King David, was buried in Jerusalem (I Kings 2:10).
Furthermore, with the Punt expedition no longer chronologically convincing as the Egyptian record of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon, there is no recorded venture to take its place.
Maybe it was not recorded - at least with the same sort of inscriptional magnificence as the Punt expedition - because it had occurred when Hatshepsut was still a ‘queen’, and not the ‘Pharaoh’, probably in the brief phase in Regnal Year 1 when Thutmose III ruled Egypt as a child-Pharaoh. Thutmose III was the son of Hatshepsut's husband, Thutmose II, by the concubine, Isis - but Thutmose III was a mere child and Hatshepsut soon intervened to assume the governance of Egypt. With Hatshepsut merely a ‘queen’ at the time of her trip to Jerusalem, it would have been a personal initiative, not recorded in the official inscriptions.
Perhaps the real evidence for the queen's visit to the Jerusalem of Solomon's time lies, not in any actual records of the expedition itself, but rather in the effects that Israelite religion and culture had on the Egypt of Hatshepsut's time.
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III
The architect Ineni described Thutmose as ‘the ruler upon the throne of him who begot him’ but says that ‘His sister, the Divine Consort, Hatshepsut, adjusted the affairs of [Egypt] by reason of her designs ...’ [19].Hatshepsut brought to the throne of Egypt some ambitious plans and historians agree she could not have carried them out without the support of Senenmut and powerful officials. Nevertheless, Budge says ‘... we are quite justified in saying that the interests of the country suffered in no way through being in her hands’ [20].
Senenmut's Call
Senenmut is a complete enigma to historians. His ancestry was not unequivocally Egyptian. According to one of his statues ‘Iwas in this land under [her] command since the occurrence of the death of [her] predecessor ...' [21]. His ‘ancestors were not found in writing’, or - variously translated ‘[whose name] is not to be found amongst the annals of the ancestors’ [22]. Both indicate that Senenmut did not hail from Egypt.
Further possible hints that Senenmut was a foreigner were his fascination with the Egyptian language, his ‘idiosyncracies in regard to the Egyptian language - the uncommon substitution of certain hieroglyphs' and his penchant for creating cryptograms, e.g. in relation to Hatshepsut's throne name, Make-ra [23]. His appearance, as depicted on statues does not provide any clues. The most outstanding feature is ‘his massive wig’ [24], an Egyptian feature. However, Solomon was thoroughly Egyptianised - two of his high officials in Jerusalem bore Egyptian names Shisha and Eli-horeph (IKings 4:3). Peter James [25] refers to an ivory plaque found at Megiddo, ‘showing a monarch holding court’, depicted in Egyptian guise. Megiddo was one of Solomon's great forts in northern Israel, where he had built a ‘monumental palace compound’ (I Kings 9:15). According to James, the ‘material culture of Palestine at the end of the Late Bronze Age [Solomon's era by the revision] is best seen’ at its site and the ivory plaque ‘... is of particular interest. [The monarch] is seated on a throne decorated with sphinxes. If it was intended to represent a specific rather than an idealized ruler, would it be too much to imagine that in this ivory we actually have a depiction of the Egyptianized King Solomon?’ Solomon may indeed have worn an Egyptian wig [26].
I believe that Senenmut's arrival in Egypt was a direct result of Queen Hatshepsut's visit to Jerusalem as the Queen of Sheba. ‘King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked ...’ (I Kings 10: 13). She was so convinced by what he told her that ‘there was no more spirit in her’ (cf. I Kings 10:3,5). Hatshepsut regarded Senenmut as her mentor and he claimed to have been an influence in Egypt ‘since [Hatshepsut's] youth’ [28]. One of his Cairo statues says he was one ‘whose opinion [Hatshepsut] has desired for [herself], who pleases the mistress of [Egypt] with his utterance’ [27] and he was both ‘chief spokesman of her estate’ (i.e. the material wealth and properties of the royal household were under his supervision) and ‘judge in the entire land’ of Egypt. Similarly, Solomon was called ‘judge' of Israel (Wisdom 9:7). Wilson [29] recognised that Hatshepsut perceived Senenmut as ‘an adviser’, though ‘In what manner he forged the bonds which brought him into close relations with his royal mistress and by which he won not only her trust but possibly even her love is a closed page of history’. Dorman notes, in relation toWinlock [30], that Queen Hatshepsut gave Senenmut his first government posts, ‘linking him closely to the royal family by giving him charge of princess Neferura'.
What had impressed the young queen during her visit toJerusalem? It was Solomon's civil and religious administration. His military organisation was also efficient, and - despite enemies later like Hadad in Edom and Rezon in Damascus (1 Kings 11:14-25) - he was never really seriously challenged during his entire 40-year reign. In fact, the era of Solomon and Hatshepsut (in revisionist terms) was one of singular peace.
Hatshepsut would also have noticed Solomon's magnificent fleet (I Kings 10:11) and the parks and gardens in Jerusalem with their exotic myrrh trees (Song of Songs 5:1; 6:2). Presumably these were what later inspired Hatshepsut’s Punt expedition.
Hatshepsut asked Solomon for help in governing her land. She probably also sought military back-up in case other forces in Egypt took advantage of the initially fragile situation in Egypt, to engineer a coup against young Thutmose III [32]. Perhaps, too, there were some who did not dispute his accession but were ready to dispute any intervention by the queen as co-ruler. Winlock [33] suggests that Hatshepsut required Senenmut’s assistance for her own coup d'êtat. Hayes says [34]: ‘The person who probably contributed most to Hatshepsut's success was her Chief Steward, Senenmut, a canny politician and brilliant administrator who ... rose [sic] to be the queen's most favoured official’.
‘Greatest of the Great’
Most historians would agree with Baikie [35] that Senenmut ‘was by far the most powerful and important figure of [Hatshepsut's] reign’. Few supposedly non-royal personages in pharaonic Egypt have caused as much ink to flow [36], and his statues and inscriptions are still abundant despite the campaign of destruction waged against them after his death.He boasted ‘I was the greatest of the great in the land …’ [37]. According to Baikie [38]: ‘... we have sufficient evidence to make it manifest that a good deal of it was simple truth, and that [Senenmut] was by far the most powerful and important figure of the reign’.
He even seems to have eclipsed Thutmose III who - after his death - went on to become perhaps the most potent of all Egypt's rulers.
Given Solomon's generous disposition (cf.Wisdom 7:13-14); his opportunism in trading matters (cf.I Kings 10:28-29), his love for beautiful foreign women (1 Kings 11:1), he could have found it hard to refuse Hatshepsut's requests. There may have been much behind the statement ‘King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked ...’. On the Cairo statue of Senenmut, it says he ‘was one who entered in love and came forth in favour, making glad the heart of [Hatshepsut] every day ...’ [39]. Even during her lifetime, there were rumours that Senenmut owed his power to his relations with the Queen. Ironically, because there is no record in Egypt of his having had any offspring, Senenmut is thought by Egyptologists to have been a life-long bachelor.
My reconstruction of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon would answer the question of how Senenmut came to power in Egypt and became the might behind the throne there, pursuing ‘one of the most amazing careers in ancient Egypt’ [40]. Had historians realised who he was, they might not have puzzled over why Hatshepsut ‘during her lifetime ... faced less opposition than might have been expected’ [41].
Senenmut as Tutor of Neferure & Thutmose III
Senenmut was a renowned ‘judge’ in the land - and also Steward of Hatshepsut. Steward of Neferure and Steward of Amon - the latter considered to be ‘his most important position’ [42]. There are various statues of him cradling Neferure in his arms, or with her peeping out from the folds of his cloak. Senenmut was also tutor to the young Thutmose III. On a stela discovered in North Karnak, he applies to the child ruler for deed, of transfer of land for institutions within the estate of Amon-Ra [43]. The application was granted. There is nothing conclusive in inscriptions to support the traditional view that Thutmose III held a deep-seated grudge against Hatshepsut or Senenmut. However, the biblical scenario shows that, towards the end of Solomon's life, serious cracks began to relationship with the young Pharaoh (as the biblical ‘King Shishak of Egypt’).
Senenmut's ‘Floruit’
In this revision, Senenmut's floruit in Egypt would correspond to the mid-to-late phase of Solomon's reign = Years 1-16 of Thutmose III. (N.B. Hatshepsut's reign is dated by the regnal years of Thutmose III). Just prior to this period, Solomon completed his great building projects in Jerusalem, and, towards its end, he fell away from pure Yahwism into a decadent phase, building shrines to pagan gods for his foreign wives (I Kings 1:18). In perfect accord this. Grimal says Senenmut ‘was a ubiquitous figure throughout the first three-quarters of Hatshepsut's reign' [44]. He oversaw some of the most famous temples and shrines built during the co-reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, and Neferure's name also figures in some of these.
Solomon's years of service to Yahweh and also his apostasy from Yahwism ought both perhaps to be reflected in Senenmut's inscriptions [45].
Solomon's Administration
The Queen of Sheba visited Solomon at the peak of his power. Bright [46] has provided a realistic account of how he organised and administered the land of Israel. Much of it is favourable, but there is also a negative side to it. Increasingly, he laid a heavy hand on his subjects in the form of taxation (1 Kings 4:7-19), appointing governors throughout the land to collect it. The state eventually faced a chronic financial crisis. When one thinks of Solomon's building projects, his army, his lavish support of the liturgy, of the worship of Yahweh, his burgeoning private establishment and the administration of the state and its undertakings, this is understandable.
Solomon, unlike his father David, embarked upon no significant military conquests - so, while expenses mounted, revenue from tribute did not. Trade was profitable, but not enough to balance the budget. Solomon took drastic measures and resorted to the hated corvée. State slavery and forced labour were common in the ancient world, especially in Egypt. However, when the Canaanite population proved inadequate, Solomon even inaugurated the corvée in Israel [47]. Labour gangs were levied and worked in relays in Lebanon felling timber for his building projects (I Kings 5:13f.).
This was a bitter dose for freeborn Israelites to swallow. The prophet Samuel had warned of the hardships if they opted for a king to rule over them (1 Samuel 8:11-18). Moses had predicted that a future king of Israel might cause the people wrongfully ‘to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses’ (Deuteronomy 17:16). Ultimately, it was the corvée that made Israel rebel against Solomon's son, Rehoboam, who had threatened ‘My father made your yoke heavy, but I shall add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I shall chastise you with scorpions’ ( I Kings 12:14).
When the administration of Israel spilled into Egypt, Hatshepsut apparently enforced the same harsh system there. Egypt ‘was made to labour with bowed head for her ...’ [48]. Not surprisingly, she put Senenmut in charge. ‘I was a foreman of foremen’, he tells us, ‘... overseer of all the works of the house of silver [treasury?] .... I was one to whom the affairs of [Egypt] were reported; that which South and North contributed was on my seal, the labour of all countries was under my charge’.
The taxation system that Hatshepsut introduced was based upon ‘a Middle Kingdom prototype’ [49]. It would not be surprising if this were the same stern model by which Joseph had reduced the Egyptians to servitude (cf. Genesis 41:34,35). Interestingly Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who led the revolt against Rehoboam, was previously appointed by Solomon in ‘charge of all the forced labour of the House of Joseph’ (I Kings 10:28). Archaeologists have discovered evidence of Senenmut's work gangs - e.g. an ostracon dated to Regnal Year 16 records the division between two foremen of a group of labourers apparently conscripted by Senenmut [50] and ‘two of Senenmut's pay sheets with three or four of the men struck off the lists’ [51].
Senenmut's Religious Functions
Historians claim ‘Steward of Amon’ was the most illustrious of all Senenmut's titles. This would be fitting if he were Solomon, and Amon-Ra were the Supreme God, the ‘King of Gods’, as the Egyptians called him. Senenmut was also ‘overseer of the garden of Amon’ (see Appendix A). Like Solomon, a king who also acted as a priest, Senenmut's chief rôle was religious. He was in charge of things pertaining to Amon and was ‘chief of all the prophets’. Solomon, at the beginning of his co-regency with David, had prayed for wisdom and a discerning mind (I Kings 3:9). On the completion of the Temple, he stood ‘before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, [he] spread forth his hands towards heaven’ (I Kings 8:22). Likewise, Senenmut is depicted in Hatshepsut's temple with arms up-stretched to heaven, praying to Hathor, the personification of wisdom.
Acting Abroad
Solomon must have spent a fair amount of time in Egypt - from approximately his 22nd/ 23rd year of reign (corresponding to Regnal Year 1 of Thutmose III) to late in his 40-year reign, when Jeroboam turned against him and sought protection with Thutmose III (‘Shishak’). Is this a realistic scenario?
The Bible gives far less detail about the latter part of Solomon's reign. In I Kings, only 15-16 verses separate the account of the Queen of Sheba’s leaving Jerusalem (10:13) from chapter 11, which informs us that ‘Solomon loved many foreign women’ who turned his heart away after other gods (vv. 1,4), and that he began to build shrines for them (vv. 7-8), so that God snatched most of the kingdom away from the House of David (v. l1). Next we read about the election of Jeroboam and his flight to Egypt to escape Solomon, who sought to kill him (v. 40). The verses in between describe Solomon, not so much as a ruler of Jerusalem, but as the great businessman and world trader
·sharing, with Hiram of Tyre, the trade of the ‘ships of Tarshish’ (10:22);
·receiving gifts from the ‘kings of the earth’ (vv. 23-25), who no doubt wanted a share in his trade; and
·importing horses and chariots from Egypt and Cilicia and exporting them to Hittite and Syrian kings (vv. 28-29).
This far-reaching commercially-based type of scenario seems to be backed up by Senenmut's claim that ‘the labour of all countries was under my charge’. During this period, the Scriptures do not say specifically that King Solomon was in Jerusalem, so there is perhaps scope for his having spent a fair amount of his time abroad, e.g. in Egypt. Israel would have been in a position to run itself. His government was in control and unchallenged, his bureaucrats well paid and much of the population was in a kind of subjection. Israel's fortifications were formidable, as was its army, which would have been allied with the armies of Egypt. So Solomon may well have been free to travel and to influence other countries (see Appendix B).
3. SENENMUT IN HATSHEPSUT'S
KINGSHIP (REGNAL YEARS 7-16)
Hatshepsut's Coronation
In about the 7th year of Thutmose III, according to Dorman [52], Hatshepsut had herself crowned king, assuming the name Maatkare or Make-ra (‘True is the heart of Ra’). In the present scheme, this would be close to Solomon's 30th regnal year. From then on, Hatshepsut is referred to as ‘king’, sometimes with the pronoun ‘she’ and sometimes ‘he’, and depicted in the raiment of a king. She is called the daughter of Amon-Ra - but in the picture of her birth a boy is moulded by Khnum, the shaper of human beings (i.e. Amon-Ra) [53].
According to Dorman, Senenmut was present at Hatshepsut's coronation and played a major rôle there [54]. On one statue [55] he is given some unique titles, which Berlandini-Grenier [56] identifies with the official responsible for the ritual clothing of the Queen ‘the stolist of Horus in privacy’, ‘keeper of the diadem in adorning the king’ and ‘he who covers the double crown with red linen’. Winlock was startled that Senenmut had held so many unique offices in Egypt, including ‘more intimate ones like those of the great nobles of France who were honored in being allowed to assist in the most intimate details of the royal toilet at the king's levees’ [57]. The rarity of the stolist titles suggested to Dorman [58] ‘a one-time exercise of Senenmut's function of stolist and that prosopographical conclusions might be drawn’, i.e., he had participated in Hatshepsut's coronation.
It would be fitting for Hatshepsut to have wanted Solomon, greatest king alive, to crown her as Pharaoh. The most recent statue of Senenmut to be found was of alabaster, unlike the rest which were granite. ‘Alabaster, used very much in the statuary of Thutmose III, is essentially, it seems, a stone reserved for royal monuments’ [59].Perhaps Hatshepsut had even intended Senenmut to become legitimate ruler of Egypt with her. According to Redford [60], Hatshepsut planned to insert Neferure into the line of succession, as demonstrated by the Sinai stela dated to the 11th year of Neferure, behind whom is portrayed ‘Senenmut, who may well have been the ‘evil genius’ behind this and many other novel moves’. However, maybe it was simply Hatshepsut acknowledging that Senenmut was a legitimate king in his own right.
Chief Architect
Now that Hatshepsut was Pharaoh, nothing could stop her grandiose plans. As queen, she had seen fantastic thing in Israel - the King enthroned in splendour, the palace, the Temple with its magnificent liturgy and gardens, and the Red Sea fleet, which may have arrived at Solomon's port while she was visiting him (cf. 1 Kings 10:1 & 10:11). Solomon could provide the same for her in Egypt. Significantly he, as Senenmut, was also Hatshepsut's chief architect [61].
Egypt could be efficiently reorganised on the same stern system that Solomon had imposed upon his own country. The work gangs would be employed everywhere, with Senemut both their ‘foreman [and] overseer’. We recall how cruel were the Egyptian ‘foremen’ in Moses' time, and that Moses had killed one of them for beating an Israelite (Exodus l:11 & 2:11-12). Yahweh had ultimately delivered his people from this ‘iron furnace’ of slavery in Egypt. How ironical, then, that a king of Israel, a believer in Yahweh, would now force the Egyptian people into servitude - but now with the Pharaoh's blessing! In return, Solomon could play the rôle of trading middleman, e.g. between Egypt and Syria.
Hatshepsut's Temple
Hatshepsut naturally enlisted Senenmut to plan her temple, ‘The Most Splendid of Splendours’, at Deir el-Bahri. He no doubt, in turn, as Solomon, sought expert assistance from the Phoenicians, just as he had done more than two decades earlier in the case of the Temple of Yahweh, in Jerusalem. Accordingly, Velikovsky had referred to Mariette's view that Hatshepsut's fine building betrayed ‘a foreign influence’, possibly from ‘the land of [Punt]’ [62]. If the Puntites were the Phoenicians [63] - and (according to the Bible) Phoenician craftsmen had assisted Solomon in his building of Yahweh's Temple - then it is most interesting that Mariette had observed that Hatshepsut's temple ‘probably represents ... a Phoenician influence’ [64]. From this, Velikovsky had concluded that the design of the latter was based on the Jerusalem model.
Bimson, however, would then reject this view, saying that Hatshepsut’s temple was clearly based on the layout of smaller 11th Dynasty temple nearby. Baikie [66], for his part, admitted that the 11th Dynasty temple would have offered Senenmut ‘the suggestion of how it would best to treat such a site ...’, but he was adamant that Hatshepsut’s temple was no slavish imitation of the older building. Senenmut, he said:
... appreciated a good suggestion when he saw it - all the more credit to him for his commonsense; but to say that he must therefore be denied any credit for originality is to set up a canon of criticism which would deprive Shakespeare of the credit for the creation of Hamlet, and Donatello of that for the creation of the Gattamelata statue. Having got his suggestion, he proceeded to glorify it, until he had produced a building which is infinitely superior ... to that of the earlier architect.
Baikie regarded the 11th Dynasty effort as ‘stumpy and sawn-off looking compared with the grace of the successive terraces, the long ramps and the graceful colonnades of the XVIIIth Dynasty artist’.
Senenmut's Tomb Complex
At about the same time, Hatshepsut also ordered a magnificent tomb complex [67] to be built in Senenmut's honour, on the highest hill in the private necropolis, at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (No.71), with a subterranean passage at Deir el-Bahri down through the friable tafl to the fine limestone (No.353).
Helck [68] has suggested a novel purpose for tomb 353 (that all agree was the intended place of burial), claiming that it was meant - like the subterranean gallery below the temple of Mentuhotep II (11th Dynasty) - for the burial of a jubilee (heb sed) statue of the ruling monarch on the eve of the celebration of jubilee. The curious presence of Senenmut in the decorated chamber signified to Helck that it was also destined to hold a statue of Hatshepsut's Great Steward, as a ‘mock burial’. Strangely, the intended sarcophagus was found shattered in pieces on top of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna. Although its exterior surface was carefully polished, carved and given a coat of red varnish, the lid was never completed. Was Senenmut/Solomon really meant to have been interred in it?
Senenmut's Astronomical Ceiling
The versatility of Senenmut is revealed in the paintings of his funerary complex. As Grimal has noted [69]:
‘[Senenmut's] constructions show that he was an architect, but other dimensions of his career are suggested by the presence of an astronomical ceiling in his tomb at Deir el-Bahri and about 150 ostraca in his tomb at Qurna, including several drawings (notably two plans of the tomb itself), as well as lists, calculations, various reports and some copies of religious, funerary and literary texts ...’.
Senenmut's tomb complex has some significant features:
·the lowest chambers of tomb 353 were within the sacred precincts of Hatshepsut's temple.
·in numerous niches there are reliefs depicting Senenmut praying on behalf of Hatshepsut. This usurpation of royal property and/or privilege has amazed historians [70],
·at the same time, a new corpus of funerary texts - what Assmann [71] calls ‘liturgies’ - was introduced into Egypt. [Interestingly, in the light of my claim that Egypt was at this time influenced by the era of Joseph, these liturgies are based upon ‘sequences attested only on Middle Kingdom coffins’ [72].
·among the literary texts was the famous Egyptian folktale, the Story of Sinuhe. I have argued [73] that this story is a conflation of biblical stories pertaining to Moses (especially), but perhaps also to David and to Joseph. Senenmut enjoyed the Story of Sinuhe [74].
·of special interest is the astronomical information in tomb 353, particularly the ceiling of Chamber A [75]. Senenmut's ceiling is the earliest astronomical ceiling known. We are reminded again of Solomon's encyclopaedic knowledge of astronomy and calendars (Wisdom 7:17-19). The ceiling is divided into two parts by transverse bands of texts, the central section of which contains the names ‘Hatshepsut’ and ‘Senenmut’ [76]. The southern half contains a list of decans derived from coffins of the Middle Kingdom period that had served as ‘a prototype’ for a family of decanal lists that survived until the Ptolemaïc period; whilst ‘The northern half is decorated with the earliest preserved depiction of the northern constellations; four planets (Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn) are also portrayed with them, and the lunar calendar is represented by twelve large circles’. [77]
In tomb 71 at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna,
·the sarcophagus itself is carved of quartzite in a unique oval form adapted from the royal cartouche shape. Dorman [78] says ‘... the sarcophagus seemed to be yet another proof ... of the pretensions Senenmut dares to exhibit, skirting dangerously close to prerogatives considered to be exclusively royal’. Winlock [79] would similarly note that it was ‘significantly designed as almost a replica of royal sarcophagi of the time’,
·one of the painted scenes features a procession of Aegean (Greek) tribute bearers, the first known representation of these people [80] - the only coherent scene on the north wall of the axial corridor portrays three registers of men dragging sledges that provide shelter for statues of Senenmut, who faces the procession of statues.
Senenmut had presented to Hatshepsut ‘an extraordinary request’ for ‘many statues of every kind of precious hard stone’, to be placed in every temple and shrine of Amon-Ra [81]. His request was granted. Meyer [82] pointed to it as an indication of his power.
Senenmut's ‘Parents’
In part 2 I had referred to the problem for this reconstruction of the burial of Senenmut's parents in Egypt. Beneath the collapsed artificial terrace in front of tomb 71 excavators in the 1930’s had found the small rock-cut chamber with the mummies presumed to be Senenmut's family, including Ramose (father), Hatnofer (mother), near the funerary monument of their illustrious son. However Solomon's father was King David, who was buried in the city of Jerusalem (I Kings 2:10). Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, was probably much younger than David, and we know nothing about her death - the last that we hear of her is at the beginning of Solomon's reign, when his brother was illicitly bidding for the throne (v. 19).
It is possible - in the context of the revision of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty - that Bathsheba was this same Hatnofer, whose mummified corpse shows that she was elderly when buried with great pomp in Egypt, in approximately Regnal Year 7 (c. Year 30 of Solomon's reign). Bathsheba may thus have remarried after David's death [83]. Moreover, all of the mummies in this chamber, except Hatnofer's, had been disinterred and re-located there. That is always a problem with regard to one’s making proper identifications. Ramose (the husband) was about 50 or 60 years old (notably younger than David). Just possibly he was her original husband, Uriah the Hittite, for whom she had made lamentation (2 Samuel 11:3, 26), though his age would be a factor. Of the eight mummies, Hatnofer alone ‘had been carefully mummified in linen from Hatshepsut's royal estate and equipped with a complete funeral outfit ...’ [84]. On two walls Senenmut is depicted with one of his parents - Hatnofer. Historians presume Ramose may have accompanied him on a wall that is damaged. But we cannot be sure of that.
‘The origin of [Senenmut's] family must ... remain uncertain ...’ [85], it is thought, so firm conclusions cannot be reached about them in a standard Egyptian context. However, this study has revealed evidence completely refuting the usual view that Senenmut was of common origin.
Commemorative Obelisks
Can we pinpoint when Solomon, as Senenmut, was actually present in Egypt?
He would definitely have been there during Hatshepsut's coronation in Regnal Year 7, and, again, on the occasion some time after Regnal Year 9, when she summoned Senenmut and the her Nubian official, Nehesi, gave them places of honour, and proclaimed to the assembly the success of her Punt venture, and again on several occasions during Regnal Year 16. Senenmut may often, of course, have delegated tasks to his foremen (like Jeroboam) while he was elsewhere.
In Regnal Year 16 Senenmut opened the Silsileh quarries, ‘probably in preparation for a planned intensification of construction at Karnak under Hatshepsut’ [86]. For Hatshepsut's jubilee, she entrusted to Senenmut the task of acquiring two commemorative obelisks. From the record engraved on the rocks at Aswan, in the far south of Egypt, it is likely that he went there in person. Baikie [87] says ‘The great man [Senenmut] set off at once, and carried out his commission with characteristic energy’. Getting the two huge shafts of granite out of the quarry at Aswan occupied seven months and was an extraordinary feat of engineering. Raising the obelisks in Thebes must have been a tremendous task. The survivor is almost 100 feet and weighs over 320 tons.
Thutmose III in the Ascendant
Thutmose, far from having engaged in damnatio memoriae, actually placed a statue of Senenmut in his Karnak temple and was ‘willing to see honor done to him, at least posthumously’ [88]. Thutmose III's apparent respect for his mentor might explain why such a military-minded Pharaoh left it 5 years after Solomon's death before invading Jerusalem and sacking the Temple [89] (as the biblical ‘Shishak’).
However cracks in their relationship surfaced near the end of Solomon's life when Jeroboam, chosen by God ‘to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon’, feared for his life and fled to ‘Shishak’ in Egypt, where he remained until Solomon's death (I Kings 11:26, 31, 40). Perhaps during the last few years of Hatshepsut's reign, with Solomon in decline, Thutmose Ill began to assert his independence. He may have realised that it would fall to him to rectify Egypt's economic problems. He accomplished this after Hatshepsut's death, by embarking upon a series of mighty military conquests.
Senenmut's Decline and Death
‘Senenmut's continuing goodwill at court seems to have continued unabated during most, if not all, of Hatshepsut's floruit’ [90]. In this reconstruction, Senenmut died in about Regnal Year 18/19. Hatshepsut died in about Regnal Year 21. Neferure may have lived well beyond both of their deaths [91]. There have been all sorts of intriguing guesses about Senenmut's demise. Schulman [92], who estimated Senenmut's age at over 50 in Regnal Year 16, thinks ‘it would not at all have been surprising for [Senenmut] to have died from natural causes at a relatively old age, without our having to suppose a fall from the royal favour which resulted in his death’.
4. ISRAEL'S INFLUENCE ON
NEW KINGDOM EGYPT
At the time of Hatshepsut, Amon-Ra probably equated to the Supreme Lord, Yahweh. Any Yahwistic influence in Egypt would be due to Solomon. Neither the Old or New Testament accounts of the visit by the ‘Queen of Sheba/Queen of the south’ specifies that she was converted to the God of Israel. She still said ‘Blessed be the Lord YOUR God’ (1 Kings 1l0:9) - for her Yahweh was not yet ‘my God’. Whether she converted to Yahwism in the end is not clear but the scriptural accounts show she was profoundly impressed and influenced by all that she had seen in Jerusalem.
Successor of the King
There is an early parallel between Solomon and Hatshepsut in the ways their fathers presented their children to the assemblies of their respective countries, to designate them as their successors.
(i) The Assembly is Summoned
‘David assembled at Jerusalem all the officials of tribes, the officers of the divisions that served the king, the commanders of thousands ... of hundreds, the stewards of the property ... and all the seasoned warriors’ (I Chronicles 2:81). Likewise Hatshepsut's father, Thutmose I ‘... caused that there be brought to him the dignitaries of the king, the nobles, the companions, the officers of the court, and the chief of the people’ [93].
(ii) The Future Ruler Presented
Next, King David presented Solomon to the assembly, saying ‘... of all my sons ... the Lord ... has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, over Israel. He said to me, ‘It is Solomon your son .... I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father’’ (vv. 5-6). So did Pharaoh present his daughter to the assembly ‘This my daughter ... Hatshepsut .... I have appointed her; she is my successor, she it is assuredly who will sit on my wonderful seat [throne]. She shall command the people in every place of the palace; she it is who shall lead you …’ [93].
(iii) The Assembly Embraces the King's Decision
In Israel, ‘... all the assembly blessed the Lord ... and bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and did obeisance to the king .... And they ate and drank before the Lord on that day with great gladness’ (29:20, 22). Similarly, the Egyptian officials [93] ‘kissed the earth at his feet, when the royal word fell among them .... They went forth, their mouths rejoiced, they published his proclamation to them’. Also, just as Solomon was presented as ‘son’ of God (cf. II Samuel 7:14), so in Egyptian inscriptions Hatshepsut was called ‘daughter of Amon-Ra’.
Temple
Some of the most notable features of the majestic 18th Dynasty temple were its sweeping terraces. Velikovsky [94] pointed this out in relation to the Psalmic ‘song of the ascent’ (Shir ha-maaloth), and then noted that a Jerusalem style of liturgy was instituted in Egypt, even with a high priest officiating. It ought not to surprise us that Hatshepsut, Queen of Sheba, would have wanted to copy the Temple o Yahweh. Does not the Bible tell us that she drank it all in with astonishment (e.g. II Chronicles 9:3, 4-5, 6, 12)?
Scriptural Influence
(i) An Image from Genesis
After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and Nehesi had places of honour. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded’ [95]. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie [96] noted that this is ‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his nation.
Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut's
‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ [97].
with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98) [98].
(ii) An Image from the Psalms
When Hatshepsut's commemorative obelisks were completed, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that [99]:
‘The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great woman. I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utterances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae’.
In language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book Psalms’, the queen continues,
‘I did it under [Amon-Ra's] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing .... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...’.
Baikie continues, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut's prayer:
‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the gloryof the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah.
‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.
- For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’
(iii) An Image from Proverbs
In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon's words about Wisdom's playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom [100]: ‘... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’.
Interestingly, the original rôles of Hathor and Isis in the Heliopolitan ‘theology’ were similar to those of Moses's sister and mother (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Grimal [101] says ‘Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...’. In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut, I had compared this Egyptian account with the action of Moses's mother and sister in Exodus 2:3-4, 7, 10.
(iv) Images from the Song of Songs
In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon), Hatshepsut boasts [102]:
‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’. Compare this with verses from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’ (4:10-11; 55). (cf.4:6, 14; 5:1, 5).
Maccoby [103] went so far as to suggest that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon for the Queen of Sheba/Hatshepsut. Clearly, the poem is written in the context of marriage (e.g. 3:11). We read, partly following Maccoby [103]:
l. ‘To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would 1 compare you, my darling’ (1:9). This reference to Egypt is strange for an Israelite girl, but natural if the beloved was an Egyptian.
2. ‘Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me’ (16). A darker complexion would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman.
3. Perhaps the sentence ‘Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?’ (3:6), refers to the visit by the Queen of Sheba, who brought a great store of perfumes. She gave Solomon ‘a very great store of spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon’ (I Kings 10:10).
4. ‘My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept’ (1:6). It is a puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher but elsewhere she appears as a great lady. Maybe here she is speaking metaphorically about her country (and her native religion?) as a ‘vineyard’? The anger of her ‘brothers’ would be understandable, perhaps, if she were a princess of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon would have unwelcome political and religious implications.
5. ‘O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house’ (8:1-2). She perhaps regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, who could live permanently with her.
Concluding Remark
Unfortunately, most of Solomon's greatest works in Jerusalem are now lost because of the successive destructions and looting of that city and because it is impossible at present to excavate the Temple Mount. Thanks to Velikovsky, however, we can now recognise much of the Temple and palace wealth of Solomon's era in the bas-reliefs of Thutmose III and his officials. Thutmose III, as ‘Shishak’, eventually divested Jerusalem of its greatest treasures and carried them back to his own land. How ironic that perhaps the most complete records of Solomon's achievements are today to be found in Egypt!
APPENDIX A
PUNT RECONSTRUCTION
According to the Bible, the Queen of Sheba made at least the latter part of her journey to Jerusalem by camel train, probably taking the same route as had the Ishmaelite traders who carried Joseph to be sold in Egypt. Contrary to Velikovsky, she did not come to Jerusalem via the Red Sea and Solomon's port of Ezion-geber. The gifts she brought were of enormous value but Solomon allowed her to take them all back with her (II Chronicles 9:12).
I suggest that the Punt expedition was a venture entirely separate from the Queen of Sheba's visit to Jerusalem, undertaken about 9 years later, when Hatshepsut had made herself Pharaoh. Its chief purpose was to obtain myrrh trees for the garden (or park) surrounding the temple of Amon-Ra at Deir el-Bahri, to provide a continuous supply of this rare plant in Thebes. Hatshepsut, recalling the magnificent parks and gardens she had seen in Jerusalem, wanted to create the same for her capital city.
Hence, unlike in Velikovsky's scenario, Hatshepsut's temple must already have been built, or was being built. The Egyptian inscriptions show Punt as a land of trees - e.g. the c-s tree that Nibbi equates with the pine [104]. This is consistent with the view that Punt was Phoenicia/Lebanon, Lebanon being the most noteworthy place for trees in the ancient Near East. Solomon had a free hand building in Lebanon (I Kings (9:19, 20), where he used forced labour. The Song of Songs refers to a ‘mountain of myrrh’, apparently in Lebanon (cf. 4:6 & 4:8). Solomon's palace was actually called ‘The House of the Forest of Lebanon’, because it was ‘built upon three rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams upon the pillars’ (1 Kings 7:2). All this priceless timber could have been obtained from the Phoenicians.
Bimson - whilst favouring Velikovsky's chronological view that Hatshepsut's Punt expedition dated to about the time of Solomon - argued that the expedition had travelled southward on the Red Sea, to NE Africa (modern Eritrea). (Velikovsky argued that the fleet had sailed northward on the Red Sea, to Ezion-geber.) Bimson claimed that myrrh trees were to be found there, and he explained how the fauna and flora of the Punt reliefs reflect a NE African location [105]. Interestingly, in Solomon's own naval expeditions to Ophir (which certainly were southward voyages on the Red Sea) his servants brought back mainly gold (1 Kings 10: 11), and there is no mention at all of myrrh trees. Hatshepsut informs us that in her Year 9 an oracle of Amon-Ra inspired her to dispatch a naval and land expedition to Punt [106]:
‘Maatkara [Hatshepsut] ... made supplication at the steps of the Lord of the Gods; a command was heard from the great throne, an oracle of the god himself, that the ways of Punt should be searched out, that the high-ways of the Myrrh-terraces should be penetrated ‘I will lead an army on water and on land, to bring marvels from God's land for this god, the fashioner of her beauty’.’
Was Solomon/Senenmut the oracular voice that spoke on behalf of Amon-Ra? One of Senenmut's titles was ‘overseer of the garden of Amon’. He may have been the brains behind the entire Punt expedition. Hatshepsut credits Amon-Ra with leading the expedition. Five ships were equipped, provided with an armed guard of Egyptian troops commanded by one of the queen's officials, Nehesi. In the wonderful series of reliefs illustrating the adventure, we see them setting sail.
Since my writing of The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut, Ihave revised my views about the logistics of the Punt expedition in the light of points raised by A. Nibbi [107], especially her insistence that the Egyptians did not travel on the open seas. This helps solve a problem with which both Velikovsky and Bimson had grappled: namely, that the Punt reliefs provide no evidence that the Egyptian fleet had at any stage been transported overland, from the Nile to the Red Sea. This led Bimson to assume that something must have been left out of the reliefs [108]. In the present scenario this would no longer be a problem, as the Red Sea was not involved at all. If Hatshepsut's fleet never left the Nile, there wouldhave been no need for overland transportation of boats.
I suggest that Hatshepsut's expedition was northward bound, for Lebanon, but it was an expedition ‘on water and on land’. The fleet simply sailed northwards to the Nile Delta. There, Nehesi and his small army disembarked and marched northward through friendly territory to Lebanon. Admittedly, the inscriptions at first give the impression that this fleet sailed all the way to Punt. ‘Sailing in the sea, beginning the goodly way towards God's Land, journeying in peace to the land of Punt ...’. However this only really says that the naval leg was the ‘beginning’ of the trip to Punt.
Early Egyptian expeditions to Punt were generally connected with a place they called kpn; commonly thought to be Byblos on the Phoenician coast. Nibbi [109] has disputed this and has identified this kpn with a port in northern Egypt. She first mentions Canopus but prefers El Gibali in Sinai. In my opinion, however, Canopus would have been the ideal place for the Egyptian fleet to have dropped anchor, close to the Mediterranean (cf. Appendix B).
Hatshepsut stressed that the travelling was peaceful. Trips to Punt had ceased for many centuries, presumably because the ‘Hyksos’ had controlled the Nile Delta, making it impossible for ship from Thebes to land there (see e.g. Hatshepsut's ‘Speos Artemidos inscription’ [110]). However, prior to the Hyksos era, the Egyptians are known to have made several expeditions to Punt. Egypt's revival of interest in Punt must have coincides with Solomon's maritime ventures, which had only become possible in David's generation (at least in Velikovskian terms, after the combined Egyptian-Israelite slaughter of the Hvksos/Amalekites).
Any maritime venture would have needed the co-operation of the Phoenicians, making King Hiram of Tyre a third important power. The Phoenician ports were international marts where all sorts of exotic merchandise could be acquired - all that Hatshepsut did in fact acquire from Punt.
Now, contrary to Velikovsky,
·Hatshepsut did not go in person to Punt. Again the Punt venture does not match the visit to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba;
·In stark contrast to the gifts given to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba, the presents that Egypt gave the Puntites were poor indeed. They comprised an axe, a poignard in its sheath, two leg bangles, eleven necklaces and five large rings. ‘The poverty and meanness of the Egyptian gifts’, wrote Mariette [111], ‘are in striking contrast to the value of those which they receive’.
I suggest that Hatshepsut's fleet would have laid at anchor at the mouth of the Nile, awaiting the outcome of Nehesi’s negotiations with the Puntite/Phoenicians, who then transported the goods via barges or rafts to Egypt, to be loaded on to Hatshepsut's ships. It is clear from Hiram's own words to Solomon (I Kings 5:8-9) that the Phoenicians did transport cedar and cypress timber in this fashion to southern ports. It the Punt reliefs, we see barges depicted beside the ships of Hatshepsut's fleet. Henri Gaubert gives an account of negotiations between the Egyptians and the Phoenicians in those days [112]:
‘In all these scenes the illustrator takes good care to depict these men from far off countries as tributaries or dependants of Egypt. Braving the dangers of the seas, they have come especially to Egypt to pay homage to the mighty Egyptian monarch. The artist has deliberately omitted the next stage, but we know from other sources what happened. The vessels which had arrived at one of the mouths of the Nile, laden with raw materials or manufactured goods, would soon leave again for their home port with cargoes of wheat or millet, lentils or beans. On the coast of Lebanon ... or in the isles of the Aegean sea ... there was a shortage of these foodstuffs, and it was precisely to barter for cereals or dried vegetables that these merchants had come to Egypt’.
In this context, it should not surprise us that Hatshepsut's fleet had brought its produce to ‘one of the mouths of the Nile’. We know from the Punt reliefs that the Egyptians brought ‘bread, beer, wine, meat, fruit, everything found in Egypt’ [113]. Most of the interesting flora and fauna of the Punt reliefs - of which Bimson had made so much - could be accounted for by the combined exotic locations of
(i) Canopus at the mouth of the Nile, near the Mediterranean Sea, and
(ii) Phoenicia/Lebanon.
Hatshepsut's fleet, loaded with produce from Punt, simply sailed back to Thebes ‘Sailing, arriving in peace, journeying to Thebes with joy of heart ...’. [114]. The story was inscribed on the walls of her new temple and Senenmut was present when Hatshepsut - some time after Regnal Year 9 – announced to the Egyptian court the expedition's success.
APPENDIX B
SOLOMON IN GREEK FOLKLORE
There is a case in Greek ‘history’ of a wise lawgiver who nonetheless over-organised his country, to the point of his being unable to satisfy either rich or poor, and who then went off travelling for a decade (notably in Egypt). This was Solon, who has come down to us as the first great Athenian statesman. Plutarch [115] tells that, with people coming to visit Solon every day, either to praise him or to ask him probing questions about the meaning of his laws, he left Athens for a time, realising that ‘In great affairs you cannot please all parties’. According to Plutarch:
‘[Solon] made his commercial interests as a ship-owner an excuse to travel and sailed away ... for ten years from the Athenians, in the hope that during this period they would become accustomed to his laws. He went first of all to Egypt and stayed for a while, as he mentions himself
‘where the Nile pours forth
its waters by the shore of Canopus’.’
We recall Solon's intellectual encounters with the Egyptian priests at Heliopolis and Saïs (in the Nile Delta), as described in Plutarch's ‘Life of Solon’ and Plato's ‘Timaeus’ [116]. The chronology and parentage of Solon were disputed even in ancient times [117]. Since he was a wise statesman, an intellectual (poet, writer) whose administrative reforms, though brilliant, eventually led to hardship for the poor and disenchantment for the wealthy; and since Solon's name is virtually identical to that of ‘Solomon’; and since he went to Egypt (also to Cyprus, Sidon and Lydia) for about a decade at the time when he was involved in the shipping business, then I suggest that ‘Solon’ of the Greeks was their version of Solomon, in the mid-to-late period of his reign. The Greeks picked up the story and transferred it from Jerusalem to Athens, just as they (or, at least Herodotus) later confused Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem (c. 700 BC), by relocating it to Pelusium in Egypt [118].
Much has been attributed to the Greeks that did not belong to them - e.g. Breasted [119] made the point that Hatshepsut's marvellous temple structure was a witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the later Greeks would be credited as originators. Given the Greeks' tendency to distort history, or to appropriate inventions, one would not expect to find in Solon a perfect, mirror-image of King Solomon.
Thanks to historical revisions [120], we now know that the ‘Dark Age’ between the Mycenaean (or Heroic) period of Greek history (concurrent with the time of Hatshepsut) and the Archaic period (that commences with Solon), is an artificial construct. This makes it even more plausible that Hatshepsut and Solomon were contemporaries of ‘Solon’. The tales of Solon's travels to Egypt, Sidon and Lydia (land of the Hittites) may well reflect to some degree Solomon's desire to appease his foreign women - Egyptian, Sidonian and Hittite - by building shrines for them (I Kings 11: 1, 7-8).
Both Solomon and Solon are portrayed as being the wisest amongst the wise. In the pragmatic Greek version Solon prayed for wealth rather than wisdom - but ‘justly acquired wealth’, since Zeus punishes evil [121]. In the Hebrew version, God gave ‘riches and honour’ to Solomon because he had not asked for them, but had prayed instead for ‘a wise and discerning mind’, to enable him properly to govern his people (I Kings 3:12-13).
Notes and References
l. Bimson, J., ‘Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba’, C&C Review Vo1.VII1, 1986, pp. 12-26. Bimson previously wrote some very fine articles supporting the revision, e.g. ‘Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?’, SIS Review VoI.VII-3, 1978, pp. 16-26 and ‘Dating the Wars of Seti I’, SIS Review Vol.Vl(1980/1981), pp. 13-27.
2. Velikovsky, I, Ages in Chaos, VoI. I, ch.3, Abacus, 1973.
3. Mackey, D., ‘The Queen of Sheba – Hatshepsut’, in CompuServe's Living History Forum (Ancient/Archaeology library, 1996).
5. Yahuda, A., The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Oxford UP, 1933. See also Mackey, Calneggia & Money, ‘A Critical Re-Appraisal of the Book of Genesis’, C&CWorkshop, 19871:2. See also my ‘Moses as Compiler of Genesis’ in CompuServe's Living History Forum (Ancient/ Archaeology library, 1996).
6. Van Beek, G., Solomon and Sheba, ch. l, ‘The Land of Sheba’, p. 41.
7. Bimson op.cit. [1], p. 22.
8. Ibid. pp. 16-17.
9. See in relation to this, Bimson’s ‘Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?’
10. See e.g. CAH II,Part I, 2nd ed., p. 323, Cambridge, 1973.
11. Mallon, A., ‘The Religion of Ancient Egypt’, Studs. in Comparative Religion (CTS,London, 1956), p. 3: ‘... this multiplicity [of gods] was but superficial it was a multiplicity of titles, not of gods. The supreme Creator god was called Atum at Heliopolis; at Memphis, Ptah; at Hermopolis ... Thoth; Amon at Thebes; Horus at Edfu; Khnum at Elephantine; but if we examine them minutely, we recognize at once that these divinities have everywhere a like nature, the same attributes and properties, an identical role. They differ only in external imagery and in a few accidental features’.
12. Tom Chetwynd's identification of Joseph as Imhotep, great Vizier to Pharaoh Zoser (Djoser) of Egypt's Third Dynasty during a seven year famine (in C&AH, January 1987. Vo1. IX, pt. 1, pp. 49-56), fits nicely into my revised scheme, with the Exodus at the end of the Old Kingdom (with which the Middle Kingdom was partly concurrent). This allows possible Middle Kingdom references to the Famine and Joseph, which there are during the late 11th Dynasty, which ruled at Thebes in the south (whereas Zoser and Imhotep were at Memphis in the north). The Pharaoh ruling Thebes at the time was Mentuhotep IV, the last of the 11th Dynasty rulers. During his reign Egypt ‘was evidently left in a confused state. At this point the Turin Canon mentions ‘seven empty years’ …’. (N. Grimal A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, Oxford, 1988, p. 159 (cf. Genesis 41:54). The priest Hekanakht describes ‘the problems of his time, including the onset of famine in the Theban region’. As in the biblical scenario (cf. Genesis 41:53, 54), this famine came after a prosperous period.
13. Heliopolis was the ancient religious capital of Egypt and a great centre for sciences. At Heliopolis, (cf.Mallon, ibid., p. 4) ‘Moses received his education’. Acts 7:22 states that ‘Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians ...’.
14. Some of these books, e.g. Wisdom, are supposed to have been written many centuries later than Solomon. If so, they may be compilations of what he originally wrote, just as Genesis is a collection (or series) of ancient histories that Moses compiled or edited into its present form.
15. A temple was built at Deir el-Bahri at the time, and a trip was made to the Land of Punt.
16. Dorman, P, The Monuments of Senenmut, Kegan Paul, London, 1988. Dorman seems to have worked out the proper sequence of events during Hatshepsut's co-rulership with Thutmose III. He has shown fairly conclusively that Hatshepsut became ‘king\, or Pharaoh, in the 7th year of Thutmose III.
17. Tombs No.71 & 353.
18. See e.g. Dorman, op. cit., p. 103, ref. W. Helck's Zum thebanisehen Grab Nr. 353, GM 24 (1977), pp. 35-40.
20. Budge, E., Books on Egypt and Chaldea. Egypt Under the Amenemhats and Hvksos, Anthropological Publications, Netherlands. 1968, p. 4.
21. Dorman. op. cit.,p. 175.Emphasis added.
22. Baikie, J., A History of Egypt, A. & C. Black Ltd., London, 1929, Vol. 11, p. 80. Historians tend to interpret it as meaning he rose to power through the ranks.
23. Dorman. op. cit., p. 138, p. 165.
24. Ibid. p. 93.
25. James. P. Centuries of Darkness, Jonathan Cape, London, 1991, p. 200. Emphasis added to last part of quote.
26. There is another possible interpretation.Solomon, as a true brother of Absalom, may simply have had a luxuriant crop of hair. Absalom used to cut his hair ‘at the end of every year ... when it was heavy on him ... [and that it weighed] 200 shekels by the king's weight’ (Samuel II, 14:26). The Song of Songs says of Solomon ‘His locks are wavy, black as a raven’ (5:11). In another version, his hair is likened to ‘palm fronds’. If Senenmut were Solomon, it may not have been a wig.
27. See Dorman, op. cit.. p. 124. Cairo, statue, JdE 47278. Emphasis added.
28. Ibid., p. 116.
29. Wilson, .L, The Burden of Egypt, Chicago, 1951, p. 177.
31. Solomon was apparently co-regent for a time when he was appointed as sole ruler of Israel, it was referred to as a ‘second time’ (cf. I Chronicles 22:6-17 & 29:22).
32. Solomon's brother, Adonijah, tried to usurp the kingdom at the beginning of Solomon's reign (cf.1 Kings 5-10 & 5:17).
33. Op. cit., 52. Winlock was actually referring not to Hatsheput's intervention as co-ruler, but to her usurpation later in becoming chief Pharaoh.
34. Hayes, W., ‘Egypt Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of Amenophis III’, in CAH, ibid., p. 319.
35. Op. cit., 81.
36. Hari., R., ‘La vingt-cinquieme statue de Senmout’, JEA 70 (1984), p. 141.
37. Baikie, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
38. Ibid., P. 81.
39. See footnote [27]. Emphasis added.
40. Grimal, op. cit., p. 209.
41. Ibid.
42. Dorman, op. cit.,p. 120.
43. Ibid., p. 29.
44. Op. cit., p. 211.
45. Solomon's apostasy phase would be reflected in Senenmut’s shrine at Silsileh, in which he is shown being embraced and welcomed by the gods themselves. Baikie, op. cit., ibid., calls it ‘an honour frequently represented as being accorded to Pharaohs and their queens; but never, save in this one instance, to commoners [sic]’.
46. Bright, J., A History of Israel, SCM Press, 1972, pp. 21f.
47. Bimson has also discussed the corvée in a revised context in his ‘Revised Stratigraphy’, with reference to W. Dever in EA. 438.
48. Breasted, op. cit., ibid.
49. See CAH, ibid., p. 385.
50. Dorman, op. cit., p. 176.
51. Ibid., p. 69.
52. Ibid., p 171. 53. For the equation between Amon and Khnum, see [11].
54. Op. cit., pp. 129f.
55. Ibid. The Sheikh Labib statue.
56. Berlandini-Grenier. J., ‘Senenmout, stoliste royal, sur une statue-cube avec Neferoure’. B1FAO 76 (1976), pp. 111-132
57. Winlock, op. cit., ibid.
58. Op. cit., pp. 129-130.
59. Ibid., p. 143. (My translation, emphasis added.)
60. Redford, D., Historv and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt Seven Studies, Toronto, University of Toronto, 1967, p. 85.
61. See e.g. Dorman, op. cit., p. 126. According to S. Wachsmann, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Uitgeverij Peeters), p. 27: ‘[Senenmut] was responsible, if not actually the architect, for Hatshepsut's principal architectural accomplishments such as her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri and her two great obelisks’.
62. As referred to in G. Maspero's The Struggle of the Nations, p. 241, n.2.
63. See footnote [3].
64. Mariette, quoted in Naville, The Temple of Deir el Bahari, Introductory Memoir, p. 1.
65. ‘Hatshepsut’, p. 16.
66. Op. cit., pp. 67-68.
67. ‘Tomb complex’ may be a better description than ‘two tombs’ in the light of Dorman's remark (ibid., p. 99) that ‘tombs 71 and 353 [though separated by the entire width of the Asasif valley] are but two parts of a unified whole’. Architecturally they complement each other and only together do they function as a typical, private Theban tomb.
68. Op. cit., pp. 35-40.
69. Op. cit., p. 211.
70. See Dorman, op. cit., p. 6, p. 173 ‘without parallel Egypt in proper’.
71. Assmann, J., ‘Funerary Liturgies in the Coffin Texts’, referred to by Dorman, op. cit., p. 82.
72. See Dorman, op. cit., p. 83.
73. Cf. [5], ‘Moses as Compiler of Genesis’.
74. See e.g. Grimal, op, cit., p. 159.
75. Neugebauer. O. & Parker. R., Egyptian Astronomical Texts, London. 1969. Vol. l. pp. 22ff; VoI. III, pp. 10-12.
76. Dorman, op cit., pp. 83-84. Much has been made of Senenmut's ceiling, including claims that it shows evidence for a reversed sky, as in the catastrophic events proposed by Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision (Abacus, 1972) – e.g. P. Warlow. ‘Return to Tippe Top’, C&C Review Vol. IX (1987), pp. 2-13.
77. Ibid., p. 84.
78. Ibid., p. 7. Emphasis added.
79. Winlock, op. cit., p. 22. Emphasis added.
80. Dorman, op. cit., p. 100. Wachsmann, op. cit., identifies these Greeks as Mycenaeans and (Cretan) Minoans.
81. Ibid., p. 125.
82. Meyer, C., ‘Senenmut eine prosopographische Untersuchung’, HAS 2 (Verlag Borg, Hamburg, 1982), p. 170.
83. Since Bathsheba was originally married to Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11:3)(the Hittites and Egyptians were both Hamitic), she may have had some affinity with Egypt from the start.
84. Dorman, op. cit., p. 168.
85. Ibid., p. 166.
86. Ibid., p. 176.
87. Op. cit., p. 83.
88. Lesko, B., ‘The Senmut Problem’, JARCE 6 (1967), pp.113-117. Note the variations in the spelling ofthe name ‘Senenmut’ (Dorman), ‘Senmut’ (Lesko). Other variations give ‘Senmout’ and ‘Sennemut’.
89. Thutmose III was a man of such culture and refinement that one might well believe that he had been taught by Solomon.
90. Dorman, op. cit., p. 172.
91. Ibid., pp. 78, 79.
92. Schulman, A., ‘The Alleged ‘Fall’ of Senmut’, JARCE 8 (1969-70), p. 48.
93. See Baikie, op. cit., p. 63.
94. Op. cit., pp. 121, 122.
95. Breasted, J., Records, Vol.ll, Sec. 295.
96. Op. cit., p. 74.
97. Dorman, op. cit., p. 99.
98. This particular phraseology, spoken in honour of a royal person, must have been a convention of the time because it also resembles the way that Hiram of Tyre greeted King Solomon (e.g 2 Chronicles 2:11-12).
99. Baikie, op. cit., p. 89.
100. Ibid., p. 70.Emphasis added.
101. Grimal, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
102.Breasted, Records. p. 274.
103. Maccoby, H., ‘The Queen of Sheba and the Song of Songs’, SISR IV, No. 4(1980). pp. 98-100.
104. Nibbi, A., Ancient Byblos Reconsidered, DE Publications, Oxford, 1985, p. 60.
105. ‘Hatshepsut’, pp. 16-21.
106. See Baikie, op. cit., p. 70.
107. Nibbi, A., Ancient Egypt and Some Eastern Neighbours,Noyes Press, N.J., 1981.
108. ‘Hatshepsut’, p. 18.
109. ‘Ancient Byblos’, pp. 59-72.
110. See Baikie, op. cit., p. 77.
111. Mariette, op. cit., ibid.
112. Henri Gaubert. Solomon the Magnificent,Longman, London, pp. 125-126.
115. Plutarch, The Rise and Fall of Athens (Life of Solon),Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1964, pp. 68-69, emphasis added.
116. According to these authors, Solon had to be instructed by the Egyptians, the Egyptian priesthood claiming to have historical knowledge going back far beyond that of the Greeks.
117. See Plutarch, ibid., p. 43 (parentage) and pp. 69-70 (chronology).
